Should Porn be Banned

[ajax]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

Indeed, on both local and national levels. Especially with a state educated populace. That's why we must be ever vigilant to protect god given rights.

[righteousrepublic]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

Indeed, on both local and national levels. Especially with a state educated populace. That's why we must be ever vigilant to protect god given rights.

And who has a fool proof process that gaurantees rights protection? How would one respond to seeing militarized cops spreading throughout the neighborhood?

[Doxxen]

"Ok so I’m “shallow” because I have standards? standards that match the prophet’s teachings. I’d say one SHOULD be picky when choosing a marriage companion."

So she doesn't have standards. Who's standards trump. Whenever you say standards you are saying that you are better than her, that's the problem is you think your standards are better. I mean she's not a meth dealing, murderer, sex trafficker, she wears short shirts, oh my goodness. The shallowness comes from thinking your better than someone else, or else you would be telling her that her short shirts are acceptable. Those aren't standards, those are religious indoctrinated values. I mean do Mormon's and other religious people really think you are better for not having short shirts because your prophet said so? The prophet saying these things is the very debate, just because it comes from a prophet doesn't make it any much better, its still a cultural custom. I guess people who wear short shirts are lesser human beings. Your standards are way too high.

lol. I didn't say she didn't have standards. But clearly, her standards, and mine, did not match up. I never said I was better. I admitted she was better off without me.

So trying to live by revealed truth makes me "better" than another? No. I also have lived by a sexual purity code. No sex before marriage being a part of it. I'm sure many in the world would say that by living that way, and wanting a mate that lives that way, .. they would say that I think I'm "better" than other people. So living a standard that you disagree with, means I think I'm "better" than another? So you're saying it's impossible for me to live a standard, and hold a potential mate to a standard, and not be "better" than another? So in order to prove that I'm not "better" than other people, I have to not have standards for a mate?

Where your logic leads doesn't make any sense.

You didn't marry someone because of a mid drift. You are saying your standards are better or else you wouldn't have brought it up and use it as a point of disagreement. Ok then why didn't you marry her? Having standards is normal, but having unrealistic standards specific to only your religion that doesn't really have much logic or science behind it is not healthy. I guess a women doesn't deserve to reproduce because she has a mid drift. If you say she can go find a different man that is in contradiction to that Mormon's would want everyone in the world converted to Mormonism in the end, or else you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. So if everyone was Mormon and a girl wore a mid drift would she not get a husband or be coerced through extortion to get rid of the mid drift in order to have a marriage and kids. And yes at the beginning when she has a mid drift and you didn't want her you ARE SAYING that her standards are lower than yours or else you would look past that small detail.

[ori]

You didn't marry someone because of a mid drift. You are saying your standards are better or else you wouldn't have brought it up and use it as a point of disagreement. Ok then why didn't you marry her? Having standards is normal, but having unrealistic standards specific to only your religion that doesn't really have much logic or science behind it is not healthy. I guess a women doesn't deserve to reproduce because she has a mid drift. If you say she can go find a different man that is in contradiction to that Mormon's would want everyone in the world converted to Mormonism in the end, or else you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. So if everyone was Mormon and a girl wore a mid drift would she not get a husband or be coerced through extortion to get rid of the mid drift in order to have a marriage and kids. And yes at the beginning when she has a mid drift and you didn't want her you ARE SAYING that her standards are lower than yours or else you would look past that small detail.

I don't have any issues with you having the opinion that my standards are "too high" or "unrealistic". I think it's fine and normal for people to have differing opinions. And, what constitutes a "high standard" or a "low standard" is just value judgments. There are no real facts involved. We can argue over facts. We can't really argue over opinions. I can say my standards are "better" than yours, yet you could argue with equal validity that your standards are "better" than mine. There is no objective way to measure them up against each other. So if you argue that your standards are better than mine, I can't disagree. It would be futile. You are certainly welcome to your opinion that your standards are "better" than mine. And I am welcome to my opinion. That's all well and fine.

So yes I'm saying my standards are better than hers. So what? She could also say that her standards are better than mine. And we can both be right, because we're talking about a difference of opinion -- a difference of a value judgement. That doesn't mean I'm better than her. She and I are both individuals with intrinsic value. We just have different opinions and values. What's so bad about that?

I have nothing to say about a hypothetical world where everyone is Mormon. I never said she doesn't deserve to reproduce because she has her midriff showing. This is a belief you are attributing to me, which I disagree with. I'm only saying that she doesn't deserve to reproduce with me if she likes having her midriff showing. Nothing more. I have no problems with women like that reproducing with other people.

To answer your question, "Ok then why didn't you marry her?": Sorry for the nitpick, but... it never progressed to that. I didn't marry her because I didn't know her very well. I never made a conscious choice to not marry her, I only made a conscious choice to not take her out again. But I know this isn't what you mean. The answer to the question that you meant, is this, (which I've already stated in this thread):

I’d rather be with one that obeys the prophet in matters of dress and grooming.

... and to elaborate, I prefer to be with someone that has the same values that I do. Isn't this what you want as well? To be with someone that has the same values as you?

[ori]

Darn it peeps, either flat out delete the post or leave it be. Don't blank it.

I would be grateful if you were to give us permissions to delete our own posts. Fact is, we don't have that permission (either that, or the way to delete is hard to detect -- believe me, I've tried to figure it out.)

Update: well i see it now! Not sure if the delete option was always there, or not. Or maybe it doesn't show up on mobile? Unclear. Anyway, I now see the ability to delete my posts, thanks Durzan!

[Durzan]

Darn it peeps, either flat out delete the post or leave it be. Don't blank it.

I would be grateful if you were to give us permissions to delete our own posts. Fact is, we don't have that permission (either that, or the way to delete is hard to detect -- believe me, I've tried to figure it out.)

Update: well i see it now! Not sure if the delete option was always there, or not. Or maybe it doesn't show up on mobile? Unclear. Anyway, I now see the ability to delete my posts, thanks Durzan!

...the funny thing is that as far as I know, everyone had the ability to delete their posts... so long as said post isn't over 30 days old.

[Doxxen]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

That is still up for debate. Proof of god still doesn't exist. Acting on the unknown where there is no intellectual boundaries is a never ending subjective open ended debate and not closed ended. But religious people have moved on as if it's fact. You can have religious views but once you start imposing those values through government channels such as this very debate (should porn be made illegal) you are in Violation of Separation of Church and State.

[EmmaLee]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

That is still up for debate. Proof of god still doesn't exist. Acting on the unknown where there is no intellectual boundaries is a never ending subjective open ended debate and not closed ended. But religious people have moved on as if it's fact. You can have religious views but once you start imposing those values through government channels such as this very debate (should porn be made illegal) you are in Violation of Separation of Church and State.

"Proof" of God will never exist - until it's too late for you to accept it. Believe as you wish, as will I. The United States was based on God's Law and the Judaeo/Christian scriptures, beliefs - those who don't like that fact, should maybe move to another country instead of trying to change this one into their godless, Satanic-inspired versions. The Founding documents are clear, as are our scriptures. If you don't believe in any of those, I don't understand why you are on this LDS forum, other than to cause contention and try to stir up trouble - not something any of us need.

[pho·to·syn·the·sis]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

That is still up for debate. Proof of god still doesn't exist. Acting on the unknown where there is no intellectual boundaries is a never ending subjective open ended debate and not closed ended. But religious people have moved on as if it's fact. You can have religious views but once you start imposing those values through government channels such as this very debate (should porn be made illegal) you are in Violation of Separation of Church and State.

Isn't that what happened with same sex (homosexual) marriage? A very small minority imposed their "values" on a majority who either were indifferent to those values, disagreed with those values or even vehemently opposed those values. Yet, here we are. Homosexual values are imposed on the majority. It is now "LAW".

[Mindfields]

Banning porn will only push it underground where the very worst of us will take control of it. It you think it's bad now it will get exponentially worse. The only way to rid the world of it is change peoples hearts.

[Obrien]

I voted other, so I'll explain.

Leave it to the local government to deal with. We live in a republic, not a theocracy.

[Allison]

Banning porn will only push it underground where the very worst of us will take control of it. It you think it's bad now it will get exponentially worse. The only way to rid the world of it is change peoples hearts.

Does this also apply to child porn?

[MMbelieve]

All porn should be banned just like prostitution. Do not see a difference between the two. And it should be at least banned in every Christ believing home and establishment.

[Silas]

All porn should be banned just like prostitution. Do not see a difference between the two. And it should be at least banned in every Christ believing home and establishment.

Yeah anyone who thinks that prostitution stops being prostitution when it is filmed has cut themselves off from their capacity for honesty and they will have a hard time regaining their integrity.

[Silas]

I voted other, so I'll explain.

Leave it to the local government to deal with. We live in a republic, not a theocracy.

Constitutionally this is the correct answer. Individual states should be left to manage this as they see fit. The way that the 14th amendment had been applied kind of muddies the waters a bit though.

[abijah`]

its also worth mentioning how predatory the porn industry is towards these young women who perform. obviously no one who participates in it is blameless, though i have even heard it been described as almost a form of modern day slavery. once you get in its very difficult to get out and its easy to find yourself in a legal snare.

i knew a porn star once. she was actually pretty sweet and down to earth. she came from a bad family background and had been sexually abused bu many of her mothers various boyfriends and left the house at 18 with no money or resources.

not trying to defend these peoples choices, but when talking about porn its perhaps worth mentioning the pain and bondage it causes on the other side of the camera as well.

heres an interesting video of an ex porn star who discusses how she got involved in the industry, what led her up to it and her experience getting out.

[Doxxen]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

That is still up for debate. Proof of god still doesn't exist. Acting on the unknown where there is no intellectual boundaries is a never ending subjective open ended debate and not closed ended. But religious people have moved on as if it's fact. You can have religious views but once you start imposing those values through government channels such as this very debate (should porn be made illegal) you are in Violation of Separation of Church and State.

"Proof" of God will never exist - until it's too late for you to accept it. Believe as you wish, as will I. The United States was based on God's Law and the Judaeo/Christian scriptures, beliefs - those who don't like that fact, should maybe move to another country instead of trying to change this one into their godless, Satanic-inspired versions. The Founding documents are clear, as are our scriptures. If you don't believe in any of those, I don't understand why you are on this LDS forum, other than to cause contention and try to stir up trouble - not something any of us need.

("Proof" of God will never exist - until it's too late for you to accept it) Sorry I can't move forward with non fact with a mentality of better safe than sorry. So if the United States was founded by people of different Christian Religions, then why did they put in a clause of Separation of Church and State, but for that they saw the necessity of preventing a country from becoming a Theocracy? Isn't the clause Freedom of Religion make it a nation for any religion, not just a Christian nation because it was the majority at the time? Telling someone to move to another country is unconstitutional and a good way to make you look very indifferent to other peoples values and customs. To say non Christians hold the same values as what you call "satanic" is a really big insult to all the people who are not religious who are upstanding citizens. (If you don't believe in any of those, I don't understand why you are on this LDS forum, other than to cause contention and try to stir up trouble), so I'm not here for debate? (not something any of us need), that's your projection that everyone is as like minded as you.

[Doxxen]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

That is still up for debate. Proof of god still doesn't exist. Acting on the unknown where there is no intellectual boundaries is a never ending subjective open ended debate and not closed ended. But religious people have moved on as if it's fact. You can have religious views but once you start imposing those values through government channels such as this very debate (should porn be made illegal) you are in Violation of Separation of Church and State.

Isn't that what happened with same sex (homosexual) marriage? A very small minority imposed their "values" on a majority who either were indifferent to those values, disagreed with those values or even vehemently opposed those values. Yet, here we are. Homosexual values are imposed on the majority. It is now "LAW".

"It's my religion's customs and that act is not OK for you to do and you need to stop", "it's my religion's customs and that act is not OK for me to do because it's my personal believes to myself and that I need to stop".

In regards to the forum the idea I think that your getting at is that the people who want porn legal are the minority. You are also saying that homosexual's are a minority.

Gay people are arguing that they have a right to marry someone of the same sex, but you are arguing that they cannot marry the same sex. The opposite would be that gay people would make everyone not have heterosexual marriage? Imposing their values meaning what they do to themselves versus what they are making you do, which is nothing, because gay people are not saying that you cannot get married because your heterosexual, it sounds odd in the argument because no gay person would impose the equal opposite value on straight people the same way straight people are imposing their value on gay people. In regards to the minority just because they are a minority doesn't mean they automatically trump the majority for being a minority just as much as the majority cannot trump the minority just because they are the majority. In this case the minority is trying to keep it's rights or in this case move back the already infringed upon rights back to the status quo and in your eyes looks like they are infringing on your right to what? What are the rights that religious people are claiming are being infringed upon by gay people? They right not to see them kiss in public? The right not to marry a same sex couple as a pastor? Can't they get their own Marriage Officiant and you can hold your right not to marry gay people? Didn't the courts uphold that Cake Shop to not make a gay wedding cake? That was upheld, right? In all those cases you are trying to change what they do with their life and not really explain who, where, how, when, why and what they are doing to infringe upon a right that you can quote and take to your local courtroom and file a complaint stating how they infringed upon your rights. In regards to a minority infringing their values on the rest of the public, isn't the Mormon Church a Minority of 15 or so million members in a country that is over 300 million people? In regards to values there is a difference between commonly held values that you can't really disagree with such as, can we all agree that sleeping enough hours is healthy, eating your vegetables, don't drink and drive, be kind to others, versus, values that can be specially identified from a specific religious group that you can say no one else practices. Also, didn't the Prophet revised their stance on LGBTQ matters 3 years after their original stance because of those values leading to the suicide of LGBTQ people in Utah. The right not to be persecuted for be LGBTQ in housing, jobs, church, personal affairs, versus the Mormon's right to stop LGBTQ people for being LGBTQ, again goes back to the its wrong you can't do it versus it's wrong I can't do that mentality. So your basically not even following your own prophets standards? All I see when someone doesn't like gay marriage is an ideology that has caused so much harm in this world such as Alan Turing, the gay's in the middle east being killed for being gay and other societies throughout history that persecuted gay people. 1st world version is to kick them out of everything, harass them all the time, be disgusted by them until they end homeless then kill themselves.

[Mindfields]

Does this also apply to child porn?

Child porn is already banned and illegal. As it should be.

[Silas]

Does this also apply to child porn?

Child porn is already banned and illegal. As it should be.

But using your logic it is bad to ban child porn because that forces it underground where it will get worse. Why does your argument apply to adult pornography but not to child porn?

[Mindfields]

The fact that it's illegal has driven it underground and it's despicable. You're correct my logic fails but I don't have an answer for child porn other than the current strategy. A child cannot legally consent and therefore requires protection by society.

[pho·to·syn·the·sis]

"It's my religion's customs and that act is not OK for you to do and you need to stop", "it's my religion's customs and that act is not OK for me to do because it's my personal believes to myself and that I need to stop".

Did I say this? Yet it is put in quotations like I did. Trying to attach a false narrative I never gave.

I think that your getting at is that the people who want porn legal are the minority.

No, where did I say that? That is not what I am getting at.

You are also saying that homosexual's are a minority.

No, I am not. Demographics and reality prove they are a minority. Irregardless of what I say.

[Silas]

The fact that it's illegal has driven it underground and it's despicable. You're correct my logic fails but I don't have an answer for child porn other than the current strategy. A child cannot legally consent and therefore requires protection by society.

Given that so many women in porn are not consenting (there are sex slaves on the major porn sites) and we haven’t got a reliable means of distinguishing who is and is not consenting, as well as those that are “consenting” were almost certainly molested as children the ability to consent is in question, should we not seek to ban this for adults as well?

It might go underground but that will for a fact mean that there is less of it. Which means that more people will be free.

We can say that people are free to drink motor oil and that is technically true, but we would assume that a person acting in such an extreme way against their best interest must be mentally damaged and in need of help.

Women doing porn are acting out trauma. They are damaged women that need help. They are prostitutes.

[Silas]

its also worth mentioning how predatory the porn industry is towards these young women who perform. obviously no one who participates in it is blameless, though i have even heard it been described as almost a form of modern day slavery. once you get in its very difficult to get out and its easy to find yourself in a legal snare.

i knew a porn star once. she was actually pretty sweet and down to earth. she came from a bad family background and had been sexually abused bu many of her mothers various boyfriends and left the house at 18 with no money or resources.

not trying to defend these peoples choices, but when talking about porn its perhaps worth mentioning the pain and bondage it causes on the other side of the camera as well.

heres an interesting video of an ex porn star who discusses how she got involved in the industry, what led her up to it and her experience getting out.

Very powerful. I’ve said this a lot of times but if we criticize feminism for destroying the family then the answer is that men need to be better leaders. This young woman deserved the dignity of a strong moral male leadership telling her that she cannot do porn.

I’m glad that she’s seen the light and understanding that it was a bad decision but now it will be incredibly difficult for her to be a wife and mother. Near impossible. We know that young women are susceptible to flattery and have a strong desire to please men. We need to protect them so that desire can create a family instead of destroy lives.

[RocknRoll]

heres an interesting video of an ex porn star who discusses how she got involved in the industry, what led her up to it and her experience getting out.

And here's one for a completely different perspective.

adult-film-star-opens-up-about-leaving-mormon-church-for-porn

https://nypost.com/2019/10/22/adult-fil ... -for-porn/