kujo Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 [quote name='add' timestamp='1332108090' post='2403358'] 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? [/quote] Because they don't have to. As President, he wants to exercise a power clearly not found in the Constitution. He's the one who has to justify his position; you can't make a claim and say "why isn't that true?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332109054' post='2403364'] Because they don't have to. As President, he wants to exercise a power clearly not found in the Constitution. He's the one who has to justify his position; you can't make a claim and say "why isn't that true?" [/quote] Are Adultery, [i]Fornication, [/i]sodomy, other forms of sexual vice and bestiality [color=red]constitution rights? [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332106554' post='2403348'] . 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] child porn in illegal, You show me where in the Constitution that power is delegated to any branch of the federal government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Child pornography can be punished at the state level. Just like murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 [quote name='add' timestamp='1332109666' post='2403368'] Are Adultery, [i]Fornication, [/i]sodomy, other forms of sexual vice and bestiality [color=red]constitution rights? [/color] [/quote] So you want Federal agents policing couples having oral sex? That's a form of sodomy. You might want to look at what Aquinas had to say about the limits of human laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332112988' post='2403393'] Child pornography can be punished at the state level. Just like murder. [/quote] Thanks for making my point, "show me where in the Constitution that power is delegated to any branch of the federal government " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 [quote name='add' timestamp='1332114238' post='2403405'] Thanks for making my point, "show me where in the Constitution that power is delegated to any branch of the federal government " [/quote] Why would I want to? I'm not the one supporting the Centrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332108832' post='2403363'] 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. [/quote] To be clear, it was an observation and not an accusation. In fact, it wasn't even much of an observation; that's why I qualified my statement with "my understanding is." As in this is just what I thought. As in I don't have anything to back it up beyond my own memory. Therefore, I'll concede this point. [quote]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. [/quote] Okay, I'll bite. You're perfectly sane, but your claim is kray-zay. If slaves got paid a wage in the 19th century, it would still be an abuse of basic human rights, so long as they were treated as sub-humans. Of course there is a different between slavery and being paid to get abused on a gigantic scale. But the difference is minute in the grand scheme of things. Lots of people get treated like slaves without fitting the literal definition of slavery. Semantics aside though, porn is plainly a violation of human rights. The "movie stars" are forced to be put into degrading situations for the whole world to see. Yes, forces. Why do you think they go into this line of business? Because they like it? Because they want to? Of course not. Some get lured in by the glitz. A lot of people want to get in, but everyone wants to get out. Problem is, nobody can get out. And trust me when I tell you that peoples' lives and families are ruined by a domino effect that started when someone accidentally stumbles upon a porn film. Many people get hooked before they even know what sex is. It has the ripple effect of potentially destroying the nation. The government is completely within its bounds to step in. [quote]Without going into the gross details of the type of work done in this industry, suffice to say that they are definitely not slaves. [/quote] Definitely? [i]Definitely? [/i]I wouldn't be so sure. The woman who is famous for actually getting out of porn happens to disagree with you, and I'm sure she's privy to all of the "gross details" you allude to. [quote] “Pornography is modern day slavery for thousands of women and the millions of addicts who can’t stop clicking.†--Shelley Lubben[/quote] [quote] 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. [/quote] As somebody who has trained for and completed two marathons, I have no words to describe how ignorant this statement is. Outside of PED use, training can not be abusive, since it is a healthy endeavor. If you do abuse your body, you'll just end up overtraining and you'll never accomplish your goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332107264' post='2403353'] How so? It strikes me as utterly insignificant. 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. [/quote]My only point is that the USCCB and the Holy Father (the present Pope and his predecessor) see the defense of marriage as a moral obligation of government. I'm just trying to understand why Catholics oppose the government getting involved to defend something based in natural law and something necessary for the common good. Likewise, I'm trying to give some good reasons why without even referring to Catholicism the defense of marriage is necessary. It seems that the majority of Catholics in America have rejected this push by the USCCB and I'm determined to understand why because I have taught and plan to continue to teach on moral theology and politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332120842' post='2403523'] As somebody who has trained for and completed two marathons, I have no words to describe how ignorant this statement is... [/quote] Sorry...but you got to be kidding! You are expressing outrage at my opinion on behalf of OLY[color=#000000]MPIANS based on your training for a couple of [/color]marathons? LOL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) I did a group project last year with a former Olympic speedskater. He was a pretty coo[color=#000000]l[/color] guy. Eh skates speed and doesn't afraid of anything. Edited March 19, 2012 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332120842' post='2403523'] To be clear, it was an observation and not an accusation. In fact, it wasn't even much of an observation; that's why I qualified my statement with "my understanding is." As in this is just what I thought. As in I don't have anything to back it up beyond my own memory. Therefore, I'll concede this point.[/quote][/font][/size] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I apologize if my tone seemed as though it was attacking you. That was not at all the intention. Rather, I was really addressing the statements made by Santorum this morning on the Sunday talk shows, expressing the same points of view. Until I see proof, I will continue to regard statements such as "t[color=#333333][left]he Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families" (Santoru[/left][/color]m's words this morning on CNN's "State of the Union") [color=#333333][left]as petty partisan rhetoric, the sort of stu[/left][/color]mpspeak that qualifies as "tough talk" during election cycles. [/font][/size] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote]Okay, I'll bite. You're perfectly sane, but your claim is kray-zay. If slaves got paid a wage in the 19th century, it would still be an abuse of basic human rights, so long as they were treated as sub-humans. Of course there is a different between slavery and being paid to get abused on a gigantic scale. But the difference is minute in the grand scheme of things. Lots of people get treated like slaves without fitting the literal definition of slavery. Semantics aside though, porn is plainly a violation of human rights. The "movie stars" are forced to be put into degrading situations for the whole world to see. Yes, forces. Why do you think they go into this line of business? Because they like it? Because they want to? Of course not. Some get lured in by the glitz. A lot of people want to get in, but everyone wants to get out. Problem is, nobody can get out. And trust me when I tell you that peoples' lives and families are ruined by a domino effect that started when someone accidentally stumbles upon a porn film. Many people get hooked before they even know what sex is. It has the ripple effect of potentially destroying the nation. The government is completely within its bounds to step in.[/quote][/font][/size] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Take out all the verbiage having to do with pornography and insert appropriate diction pertaining to cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and any other substance or behavior that has been judged to be "immoral" at some point in history. [quote]Definitely? [i]Definitely? [/i]I wouldn't be so sure. The woman who is famous for actually getting out of porn happens to disagree with you, and I'm sure she's privy to all of the "gross details" you allude to. [/quote][/font][/size] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Difference of opinion. I think getting paid for services rendered =/= slavery. Perhaps indentured servitude would be a more appropriate term?[/font][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 [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. [/quote] [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332112988' post='2403393'] Child pornography can be punished at the state level. Just like murder. [/quote] OK, but what happens when the ACLU challenges one of those state level laws in federal court on first amendment grounds? I believe they have already challenged - successfully - attempts by local libraries to restrict children from viewing "adult material" (I don't have the case name handy, so feel free to correct me or give any details I may be leaving out). This is where the power of the presidency to appoint judges comes into play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 As long as we are all consistent, might as well remember that when you choose to give the Government more power than they should have, so that they can do something you agree with, 4 years later it could easily be the other team(in this case, the Democrats) with that additional power in hand. this is why there are limits to the government's power, and that is why they are important. just try to keep the tears out of your beer when the powers that you gave the lovely "trustworthy" republican government to push your moral agenda, suddenly show up in the wallet of the Liberals, who will be more than happy to turn them against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1332128565' post='2403684'] As long as we are all consistent, might as well remember that when you choose to give the Government more power than they should have, so that they can do something you agree with, 4 years later it could easily be the other team(in this case, the Democrats) with that additional power in hand. this is why there are limits to the government's power, and that is why they are important. just try to keep the tears out of your beer when the powers that you gave the lovely "trustworthy" republican government to push your moral agenda, suddenly show up in the wallet of the Liberals, who will be more than happy to turn them against you. [/quote] I tossed a pearl of similar content into this den of swine a few pages back, but it wasn't well received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now