[Gerald]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

By not holding people and society up to Godly standards somehow means more work?

If people and society were truly held up to Godly standards I would be compelled to forgive someone who wronged me if that person was genuinely contrite and repentant.

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by Gerald

If people and society were truly held up to Godly standards I would be compelled to forgive someone who wronged me if that person was genuinely contrite and repentant.

That's the whole idea behind Judeo-Christinan doctrine Gerald: Hold ourselves and society up to Godly standards. When we fall from them (which we as individuals will do), then we pick ourselves up and try to do our best all over again.

Changing institutions to mirror our weaknesses is harmful to the individual, and to the society that we live in.

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by Gerald

If people and society were truly held up to Godly standards I would be compelled to forgive someone who wronged me if that person was genuinely contrite and repentant.

No, not that god. He meant the wrathful, fire and brimstone, smite you first and ask questions second kind.

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes, selling your body for sexual purposes is "easy" Rusha (it's called "prostitution"). Many women (and men) do it and make a good financial living off of it.

Originally Posted by Rusha

Nope ... prostitution is illegal. You asked about porn.

They often times go hand in hand. Besides, this isn't about legalities (pornography was illegal), it's about adults doing consensual acts.

Prostitution (sometimes) is (we'll forget about white slavery and the kidnapping of children and turning them into prostitutes).

Prostitution is good as long as it's between consensual adults, right?

Quote:
Yet you fail to see that you are still selling your body for sexual purposes even if you don't physically partake in the act of sexual intercourse.

Speak for yourself. I don't view porn ... it's boring.

This has nothing to do with what our personal preferences are, it's about what pornography is.

Is not taking off your clothes and selling your naked image for the viewing of others a form of prostitution?


Quote:
Of course you're not talking about the actual physical act of a woman having sex with a pervert, you're talking about undressing and making provocative poses in front of a camera and allowing said pervert to "fantasize" about having sex with her.

Because *perverts* don't fantasize about women who are fully clothed.

And what does this have to do with the multi billion dollar pornography industry, other than the possibility that his fantasies were fueld by porn?


Quote:
You have two complete different scenarios here Rusha. We're talking about a woman (or man) being paid to take his or her clothes off and posing provocatively for the purpose of bringing about lustful thoughts. Do you not see the difference?

Ask yourself that question. We were discussing pornography, not prostitution.

I did before I asked it. Money is being paid for sexual favors. Just because the woman isn't there in person, doesn't mean that it's not an act of prostitution.

"Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment. The person who receives payment for sexual services is called a prostitute and the person who receives such services is known by a multitude of terms, including "john". Prostitution is one of the branches of the sex industry."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution


Quote:
If life were only that simple. As this former adult film actress states, there are other things that go along with being a porn actress or actor: STD's/HIV-AIDS, drug addiction, "physical" prostitution, physical and verbal abuse, and of course a twisted look at sexuality and relationships, just to name a few.
http://www.covenanteyes.com/2008/10/...porn-industry/

Something that these individuals are fully aware of ...

The old "they should have known better, they deserve what they got" Darwinian compassion Rusha?


Quote:
I wasn't aware that working at McDonald's ran the high risk of catching STD's, drug addiction, involvement in prostitution and physical and verbal abuse; perhaps you could show me the studies done?

Perhaps not during working hours.

LOL...ok.


Quote:
As far a marriage goes: If the husband and wife both possess Judeo Christian values, those things are either non-existent or aren't a factor in the marriage. It's that "honor thy wife/husband" thing that us Christians do our best to follow.

Which would explain why there are Christian men and women who cheat, abuse and divorce, correct?

Yes, Christian men and women fall from grace as well. Review the link I attached in a post to Gerald: "When Hyprocrisy is a Good Thing".

Thank Libertarians like you for adding fuel to the fire.


Quote:
Yep, something we'd all want our children to do, ey Rusha?

Speak for yourself. For the rest of we rational individuals, no.

I have. Pornography is wrong. It degrades women, it perverts what God has planned for human sexuality, it destroys relationships, families and society in general.

Quote:
I see, destroying one's life through pornography is ok for OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN,

I disagree that porn is okay for people's children, and it's quite disconcerting that you are fine with it.

I was referring to the children of others who are adults.


Quote:
but not for yours, as long as you throw in the word "liberty" (which has been debased in meaning by Libertarians like you) and "consent"? Gotcha.

No, you really don't. It's that same "liberty" that individuals such as yourself defend when it comes to defending smoking and alcohol. I guess it's fine if other people's children end up dead due to smoking or alcohol, eh ASC ... err I mean Just Tom ... wait, ACW.

For those of us that actually believe in God, responsible alcohol consumption or an occasional cigarette is not immoral. Besides, it's "consensual", what's your beef with that?


Quote:
So all things good are based on whether or not "consent" is used?

Feel free to show where I have stated any such thing. Officer.

So let's get down to the basis of our discussion here Rusha.

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR MORAL BEHAVIOR?

I say it's God's word as seen in The Holy Bible; your definition is?


Quote:
Should we not have laws against "bad choices", even if it's shown that other people's lives are destroyed by them?

If you say "yes", then I always encourage YOUR LOVED ONES to partake in the activities that you're defending before we legalize them.

Well, goody goody gumdrops and all that stuff for you! What I would encourage is for *your loved ones* to go together and pay for you to take a course in comprehensive reading, as well as several visits to your local psychiatrist. Your obsession with the private lives of others is not normal.

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR MORALITY RUSHA?

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

No, not that god. He meant the wrathful, fire and brimstone, smite you first and ask questions second kind.

Izzat so?

I like smiting! Smiting is the most fun you can have and still keep your clothes on!

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

No, not that god. He meant the wrathful, fire and brimstone, smite you first and ask questions second kind.

Should you be talking about something that you don't believe in m_d? (Or is it you just HATE God?).

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

That's the whole idea behind Judeo-Christinan doctrine Gerald: Hold ourselves and society up to Godly standards. When we fall from them (which we as individuals will do), then we pick ourselves up and try to do our best all over again.

As opposed to kicking people when they're down?

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by Gerald

As opposed to kicking people when they're down?

Justice and compassion play a role in Christianity Gerald.

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Since when does something two adults do consensually automatically make the act moral and acceptable to a society?

We're talking about the legal aspect of it. And from a legal standpoint, the default position is that government shouldn't care what adults do consensually in private, unless there is demonstrable harm to others.

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

We're talking about the legal aspect of it. And from a legal standpoint, the default position is that government shouldn't care what adults do consensually in private, unless there is demonstrable harm to others.

If you're talking about the government of the United States, we should go back to the founding of our nation and see how the predominately Christian forefathers felt about the things you promote.

But since we're talking about modern day secular humanist morality (and I'd much rather debate this topic with you than Rusha), make your case for moral behavior.

Thus far it appears that the criteria is that in order for any act to be moral (in this case, right in the eyes of the populace of the country, not God, I'm going by your standard not mine)

1). Adults must be involved
2). It must be consensual between the adults (you didn't mention the number of adults in the consensual relationship, confirm that please).
3). It must be done in private.
4). There must be no harm to others.

Now I have a few questions on the "harm" statement:

Does harm to oneself count?

What if the harm is done by adults, consensually and done in private?

Does the harm have to be visible to the naked eye, or can we dig deep and see if there is a rot that occurs, that will eventually cause the downfall of that relationship and perhaps society?

I'm sure I'll have a few more questions regarding the rules of your version of morality. I'll ask as we go.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Justice and compassion play a role in Christianity Gerald.

Which is why Christianity always seems to take it on the chin; I'm sure you're quite familiar with my views on compassion and its folly...

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Does harm to oneself count?

Nope. If my neighbor wishes to visit harm upon himself, it is not my responsibility to restrain him.

If he's an adult, then he knew the risks going in.

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

If you're talking about the government of the United States, we should go back to the founding of our nation and see how the predominately Christian forefathers felt about the things you promote.

I already addressed this earlier. My concern is with the law as written, not guesswork in to the minds of the original lawmakers.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

But since we're talking about modern day secular humanist morality (and I'd much rather debate this topic with you than Rusha), make your case for moral behavior.

Thus far it appears that the criteria is that in order for any act to be moral (in this case, right in the eyes of the populace of the country, not God, I'm going by your standard not mine)

1). Adults must be involved
2). It must be consensual between the adults (you didn't mention the number of adults in the consensual relationship, confirm that please).
3). It must be done in private.
4). There must be no harm to others.

This is a minimum legal criteria of when the state shouldn't interfere. It isn't about morality. Many things are considered immoral by the majority, but are still legal.

And "modern day secular humanist morality" is even less homogenous than self proclaimed Christian morality is - You'll get various and contradictory opinions on whether homosexuality, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, suicide, feminism, abortion, fornication, adultery, bestiality. polyamory, etc etc are "moral".

That's why it's important for the law to stay as far away from subjective feelings about morality, and focus on clear and demonstrable harm to non-consenting or third parties (and always in perspective of other actions and that restricting liberty is in itself a harm).

[Angel4Truth]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

We're talking about the legal aspect of it. And from a legal standpoint, the default position is that government shouldn't care what adults do consensually in private, unless there is demonstrable harm to others.

Demonstrable harm coming from what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom....

Before Aids was fully known, 2 consenting adults of the gay community passed aids into the general population by giving blood after their consensual sex.

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

Demonstrable harm coming from what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom....

Before Aids was fully known, 2 consenting adults of the gay community passed aids into the general population by giving blood after their consensual sex.

Two consenting Heterosexuals can also pass AIDS from one to the other, and can also give a blood transfusion later.

The need to prevent harm must be tempered with the inherent harm of denying liberty. It is not black and white, which gives most fundies fits.