Catholicvote Endorses Rick Santorum

[Winchester]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332007809' post='2402380']
Even when I was young, when my friends would huddle around a stolen copy of Playboy, I was the guy who'd shrug his shoulders and say "I'm going to play video games."

[/quote]
[img]http://rokpool.com/files/u1/erasure_2.jpg[/img]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332008516' post='2402387']I've rejected the means you say accomplish the ends.[/quote]That is a fair distinction and one I readily accept.

[add]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332008516' post='2402387']
.
I reject that government may issue marriage licenses,.
reject that government may favor one group over another through tax schemes..
I've rejected the means you say accomplish the ends.
[/quote]

[size=6]harooh[/size]

Edited March 17, 2012 by add

[truthlvr]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1331996539' post='2402338']
You're missing the point entirely.

It is NOT the job of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES--the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--to make moral policy pertaining to the sale and distribution of pornographic and sexual material. We do not need the federal government to draw any more lines, nor do I need them to protect me and my daughters (and sons...girls look at porn too!) from horny teenagers.

Rick Santorum's view on pornography is extreme and indicative of how he views the world. If you don't want to use, view or partake in porn, then don't. But in a free market economy, where we already have sensible laws governing the production, sale and distribution of this stuff (including preventing "hardcore pornography"--however that is defined--from being on billboards) there's no need for any further federal intervention. Yet, here is the Republican party, justifying an unconstitutional approach by playing the morality card.

If you wouldn't want a Democrat to tell you what's moral, don't let a Republican!
[/quote]I see where you're coming from... I didn't think of it like that. Which laws are already out there that govern this? Do you know why it's not already being enforced? I didn't mean to get you so upset. I'm just trying to figure out how I can go to a hotel room and safely let my children surf the channels - that are provided, not purchased - without being assaulted by unwanted porn. And I'm concerned about the effect of porn on our youth. It's good to know there are already laws that help with this. Perhaps you can share your knowledge and we can help to shine the light on those existing laws and question our leaders as to why they aren't being enforced. Thank you for your response.

[add]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332007922' post='2402381']
Kujo, reread what I posted above about how there probably isn't a good reason to ban pornography.
[/quote]

Morality matters, the immorality of pornography transcends government and  religious rules.  
The health and strength of the  united states of america greatness is  based on judeo Christian values.  The abomination of free and unfeathered abortion, the dilution of of holy matrimony (  divorce, the  sanctioning of same-sex unions, biogenetic in vitro fertility) is or may be the downfall of prosperity and true happiness ?... As we know it!

Edited March 18, 2012 by add

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332087588' post='2402995']
Morality matters, the immorality of pornography transcends government and religious rules.
The health and strength of the united states of america greatness is based on judeo Christian values. The abomination of free and unfeathered abortion, the dilution of of holy matrimony ( divorce, the sanctioning of same-sex unions, biogenetic in vitro fertility) is or may be the downfall of prosperity and true happiness ?... As we know it!
[/quote]

None of this is within the purview of the office of the President of the United States. The laws, statues, and responsibilities of the individual holding this office are specified within the Constitution.

You and others who want the President and Congress to legislate based on YOUR view of morality are beset by the same sickness as the Progressives and Leftists so beleaguered by the GOP.

[add]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332095655' post='2403070']


None of this is within the purview of the office of the President of the United States. The laws, statues, and responsibilities of the individual holding this office are specified within the Constitution.

You and others who want the President and Congress to legislate based on YOUR view of morality are beset by the same sickness as the Progressives and Leftists so beleaguered by the GOP.
[/quote]
in your utopian (view of society) world, is porn a perversion?

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332099280' post='2403101']
in your utopian (view of society) world, is porn a perversion?
[/quote]

I have no utopian world. And I don't have any opinion on pornography since I neither consume, produce or distribute it. Besides the fact that I have never found the sight of nipped and tucked naked women pretending to be in ecstasy appealing, I think saturating your mind with sex and sexual images is a fairly good way to desensitize you to the beauty, the intimacy and the depth of the act of making love with the person you love. I feel a profound sense of sadness for the men and women who have to dive deeper and deeper into the strange and bizarre acts that pass for sex these days. That being said, I also have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do. If asked, or given the opportunity, I can surely express my feelings on the subject, in the hopes that what I say would move the person to realize the wounds they are inflicting on their souls and their psychology. But coercing their conversion via congressional fiat is simply NOT what I would do.

[add]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332100196' post='2403120']
I have no utopian world. And I don't have any opinion on pornography since I neither consume, produce or distribute it. Besides the fact that I have never found the sight of nipped and tucked naked women pretending to be in ecstasy appealing, I think saturating your mind with sex and sexual images is a fairly good way to desensitize you to the beauty, the intimacy and the depth of the act of making love with the person you love. I feel a profound sense of sadness for the men and women who have to dive deeper and deeper into the strange and bizarre acts that pass for sex these days. That being said, I also have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do. If asked, or given the opportunity, I can surely express my feelings on the subject, in the hopes that what I say would move the person to realize the wounds they are inflicting on their souls and their psychology. But coercing their conversion via congressional fiat is simply NOT what I would do.
[/quote]
Based on your logic, could it be that you don't have any opinion on, let’s say “murder in cold blood”, since you have neither participated, nor have killed anyone? Also, that you have no right to say to others that they can and cannot kill.
Are the ten commandants irrelevant in your world view?
Your position sounds like anarchy, to me.

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332105877' post='2403343']

Based on your logic, could it be that you don't have any opinion on, let’s say “murder in cold blood”, since you have neither participated, nor have killed anyone? Also, that you have no right to say to others that they can and cannot kill.
Are the ten commandants irrelevant in your world view?
Your position sounds like anarchy, to me.
[/quote]

We already have laws against "cold blooded murder," so there's no need for me to craft an argument intended to justify the creation of new ones that favor my personal opinion. Sen. Santorum and others want to change the status quo as it pertains to pornography. It is therefore incumbent upon THEM to justify that the legality of that position, not the other way around.

As for my "world view"--what does that mean, by the way?-- that is not the issue here. We are discussing the constitutionality of Sen. Santorum's goal of banning pornography due to what some perceive as its immoral nature. You show me where in the Constitution that power is delegated to any branch of the federal government and THEN we can have a discussion about world views.

Edited March 18, 2012 by kujo

[XIX]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331935810' post='2401994']
Please list documentation that Mr Santorum's politics are not Catholic.
[/quote]
CCC 2297

[quote][b]2297 [/b][i]Kidnapping [/i][color=#5C5C5C][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=3]and [/size][/font][/color][i]hostage taking[/i][color=#5C5C5C][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=3] bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. [/size][/font][/color][i]Terrorism [/i][color=#5C5C5C][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=3]threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. [/size][/font][/color][b][i]Torture [/i][/b][color=#5C5C5C][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=3][b]which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.[/b] Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended [/size][/font][/color][i]amputations[/i][color=#5C5C5C][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=3], [/size][/font][/color][i]mutilations[/i][color=#5C5C5C][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=3], and [/size][/font][/color][i]sterilizations [/i][color=#5C5C5C][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=3]performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

Relevant info in bold. That really ends the debate on whether waterboarding is torture.

a) It is violent
b) It is done to extract confessions (and probably to punish the guilty/frighten opponents/satisfy hatred)

I'm pretty sure we are all clear on where Santorum stands on waterboarding. CCC 2297 makes it dead clear that Santorum is, ergo, in support of torture. Torture by another name is still torture.
---------------------
Santorum's policy with regard to funding Planned Parenthood is actually a bit grayer than I initially thought, but still indicates that he is willing to compromise on life issues.

[url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/01/ron-paul/ron-paul-ad-claims-rick-santorum-voted-fund-planne/"]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/01/ron-paul/ron-paul-ad-claims-rick-santorum-voted-fund-planne/[/url]

[quote]"As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I've always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things, including the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the funding for Health and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments. It's a multi-billion-dollar bill.[/quote]

The point is this: Catholics really can't compromise on the issue of funding Planned Parenthood. This goes way beyond mere contraception, of course, since basic economics shows that "contraception money" will inevitably bleed into abortion money. And bonus points for making the bill (and government involvement) even larger as part of his compromise. Small government conservative ftw.

[XIX]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331950212' post='2402166']
In our country the law prevents such actions, and this is a good thing.
They are allowed to play house but in about 85% of America their relationship is not recognized as marriage. That's important and shows one of the good possible outcomes of laws on marriage. [/quote]
How so? It strikes me as utterly insignificant.

[quote] The adoption issue was meant to show that marriage must be a governmental matter because of the effect it can have on adoption cases (one of many different possible reaches of marriage laws). Without any sort of governmental influence on marriage then the whole idea of family will be destroyed in our society.
[/quote]
Ok, I get your point here. It would be nice if government actually worked that way, but I am more skeptical. I think state-defined marriage is more likely to give us terrible parameters for determining the best adoption candidates, than give us good parameters.

[XIX]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332106554' post='2403348']
We already have laws against "cold blooded murder," so there's no need for me to craft an argument intended to justify the creation of new ones that favor my personal opinion. Sen. Santorum and others want to change the status quo as it pertains to pornography. It is therefore incumbent upon THEM to justify that the legality of that position, not the other way around.

As for my "world view"--what does that mean, by the way?-- that is not the issue here. We are discussing the constitutionality of Sen. Santorum's goal of banning pornography due to what some perceive as its immoral nature. You show me where in the Constitution that power is delegated to any branch of the federal government and THEN we can have a discussion about world views.
[/quote]
My understanding is that there are already many laws restricting pronography. They're just never enforced.

Regardless, porn is a basic human rights violation and is worthy of some sort of banhammer. I'm for small government, but not for anarchy. Many porn actresses are effectively treated like sex slaves, so it needs to end. Like, now.

[add]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332106554' post='2403348']
what some perceive as its immoral nature. .
[/quote]
If Sen. Santorum is wrong to suggest that [i]there is no such criterion[/i], his critics should be able easily to refute his argument by producing it. Why haven't they done so?
They haven't done so, and won't be able to do so, because Rick Santorum is right: There is no principle that courts can employ in picking and choosing among the range of possible consensual non-marital forms of sexual conduct for purposes of assigning constitutional protection. If marriage is overthrown as the principle that distinguishes protected from unprotected conduct in matters of sexuality, it will have to be replaced, in the end, by the idea of consent. No non-arbitrary grounds will be available for deciding that sodomy and fornication are "in," but consensual adultery, group sex, commercial sex, etc., are "out." The rational pressure for consistency will move courts in the direction of imposing by judicial fiat the agenda of fundamental social libertarianism. And that was Rick Santorum's point.

[kujo]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332107656' post='2403355']

My understanding is that there are already many laws restricting pronography. They're just never enforced.

Regardless, porn is a basic human rights violation and is worthy of some sort of banhammer. I'm for small government, but not for anarchy. Many porn actresses are effectively treated like sex slaves, so it needs to end. Like, now.
[/quote]

I cannot speak to the veracity of your first paragraph, so unless you can be more specific as to the precise laws on the books that you and Santorum believe the leadership of the current Justice Department are failing to enforce, I refuse to discuss this seemingly baseless accusation.

As to the second paragraph, call me crazy, but being paid a wage for the work you do seems to be the very opposite of slavery. Without going into the gross details of the type of work done in this industry, suffice to say that they are definitely not slaves. I personally find the things they have to do to themselves--their bodies, their minds, their souls--in order to be successful to be disgusting. But then again, I can say similar things about the abusive training required of those who want to be involved in professional ballet, the Olympics and jockeys.

That's just me, though.

Edited March 18, 2012 by kujo