Why?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 18 2004, 05:51 PM']Right. don't get me wrong, pornography is very sinful. I'm just trying to think of a non-religous approach to prove that it is. Kindof like C.S. Lewis' approach to prove Christianity in "Mere Christianity"[/quote]
bro adam,

most often, when a non-religious argument is needed to prove that something is illicit, it is helpful to turn to how the thing or action in question effects society. since governments are established to maintain order and encourage prosperity w/in societies, if it could be shown that a particular thing or action impeded upon the goals of the government, then that thing or action would be illicit based upon a non-religious argument.

so, how do we prove that one depiction of nudity (michelangelo's David) does not impede upon the goals of the government, but another depiction (anything from Hustler magazine) is such an impediment? well, one would have to prove that the depiction was unconstitutional, since the rules of the Constitution of the US are what governments must uphold to maintain order and encourage prosperity.

first it is important to see how the government (or the state, or congress) defines "pornography."

in a report entitled [url="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/CRS.childporn.ob.3.pdf"][b]"Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues"[/b][/url] provided by the [b]C[/b]ongressional [b]R[/b]esearch [b]S[/b]ervice (a branch of the Library of Congress that provides nonpartisan research to the U.S. Congress), the following summary is given:[list]
[*]The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press . . . .”The First Amendment applies, with twoexceptions, to pornography and indecency, with those terms being used to refer to anywords or pictures of a sexual nature. The two exceptions are obscenity and childpornography; because these are not protected by the First Amendment, they may be, andhave been, made illegal. Pornography and indecency that are protected by the FirstAmendment may nevertheless be restricted in order to limit minors’ access to them
[/list][b]therfore, pornography is unconstitutional only when it is "obscene"[/b]

the same report has this to say on what constitutes obscenity:[list]
[*]To be legally obscene, and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment, pornography must, at a minimum, “depict or describe patently offensive ‘hard core’sexual conduct.” The Supreme Court has created a three-part test, known as the [i]Miller[/i] test, to determine whether a work is obscene. The Miller test asks:
[b](a)[/b] whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” wouldfind that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
[b](b)[/b] whether thework depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specificallydefined by the applicable state law; and
[b](c )[/b] whether the work, taken as a whole, lacksserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
[/list]
[b]therefore, in order to argue that a depiction of nudity or sexuality is "wrong" w/o using religious criteria, one must prove that it is obscene, under the guidelines of the law.[/b]

another way to prove that a depiction of nudity is wrong is if it constitutes child pornography. this--along w/ obscenity--are the only two exceptions not protected by the First Ammendment. child pornography is not protected by the first ammendment b/c it “is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children . . . . Indeed, there is no serious contention that the legislature was unjustified in believing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to halt the exploitation of children bypursuing only those who produce the photographs and movies.”

the definition of what constitues child pornography has gradually developed as court cases have defined more and more unique situations as representing child pornopgraphy. these developments are too numerous to include here, so i direct you to the [url="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/CRS.childporn.ob.3.pdf"][b]CRS report[/b][/url] to read these for yourself.

[b]so, along w/ proving that a depiction is obscene, we an also claim that it is wrong by proving that it constitutes child pornography[/b]


essentially then, we have two non-religious ways to prove that a depiction of nudity is wrong or illicit or illegal.

i hope this helps........pax christi,
phatcatholic

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 18 2004, 11:06 PM'] I'll make you a deal. *coughbribecough*

If you write 5 of the summaries that are still needed in the Apologetics section of the reading room, I'll make you Church Militant.

- 300-400 words
- brief overview of the Catholic teaching
- touch on the most common arguments against
- w/ scripture references

Deal? [/quote]
What does it take to earn Church Faithful? I want to earn my stripes!

[Cure of Ars]

Psychology can be used to show that pornography is disordered and because of this immoral. It is getting more difficulty though because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has taken out some of their sexual disorders and lifted the standard to having to cause "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." I think it can still be used as a good argument, especially to people who give a lot of weight to psychology. From a psychological point of view, pornography is disordered much like other fetishes because it is a means to avoid healthy commitment and intimacy (i.e. an impairment of social functioning).

It’s also scary that all cereal killers and pedophiles are into pornography. I know that this could only be a correlation but then again it could also be a catalyst.

[Brother Adam]

Excellent responses thanks.

When I mean "non-religious" I mean a view that doesn't deal with moral value. Obviously those who use pornography have no moral value in that area. (At least those who think it is okay, I know that there are many people who struggle with it, and I don't mean to attack those people or anything)

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 19 2004, 12:06 AM'] I'll make you a deal. *coughbribecough*

If you write 5 of the summaries that are still needed in the Apologetics section of the reading room, I'll make you Church Militant.

- 300-400 words
- brief overview of the Catholic teaching
- touch on the most common arguments against
- w/ scripture references

Deal? [/quote]
Dust,

I see 15 of them without summaries? They all say "Help" or have "-" mark. I'll start on the ones with the "-" mark but those only come to 4. Let me know if there are 5 you specifically want done

[crusader1234]

There was already a thread on this where (and I bet you can guess which people were saying this) some people were arguing that nudity was always a sin and even on the Cistine Chapel ceiling.

My personal viewpoint on the matter is that if you look at something, you acn just tell.

I'll go dig up the old thread.

Peace,

Rich

[Quietfire]

[quote]I bet you he can do it, dUSt. That CD he made - it's incredible.[/quote]

OOOh, what CD?


Peace.

[Quietfire]

Ya know, I've been thinking. (does anyone smell smoke?)

Nudity. Now, wouldnt it also depend on how one was raised. If a parent were to raise a child to see the body not as a lustfull thing but as a thing of beauty, would that make a difference? I mean to show respect for one's body? And others?

Example...

When I was younger, my parents were VERY careful about what we saw on television. As a result, I guess I was rather sheltered on alot of stuff. But I have a specific memory of a certain event.

My mom was explaining to us that sex wasnt a "toy to be played with". Things like diseases and such were always out there. I could go on here, but it isnt the exact words of the conversation I remember as much as what she did next. She then produced a Playboy magazine. Now wait a minute and hear me out.

Well, we know what Playboy is for, dont we? We knew it too. BUT, she went to a specific page and the pictures there were very graphic and very different. They showed sexual diseases at different stages on the human body. Yes, it was still the Playboy magazine, but this was creepy. These pictures showed sexual organs and how VD ravaged the body.



Doesnt that fit in here somehow? I know my mom was trying to be more educational than anything.

But since some argue that nudity is nudity and it's all evil (including the Sistine Chapel ?????), that kindof stuck with me.

Peace.
Hey, what about doctors? They see us in the buff.

Edited June 19, 2004 by Quietfire

[crusader1234]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=11094&st=0"]You can read the whole argument already here,[/url]