The Blue Board

Your choice ends when you take away someone else's right to do something that in no way infiringes on your rights.

That is why it is wrong to ban: smoking, drinking, abortions, porn, etc.

Of course each has to be regulated to ensure they don't interfere with your rights- no porn billboards in Times Square, for example- but other than that you should NEVER have the right to tell me that under any circumstances I can't do one of those things.

Its not personal if you want everyone to abide by your religion's standards. This is a public issue. If you don't like pornography don't partake, its that easy.

This is tyrannical, and this mentality has been used to justify countless religious atrocities throughout history.

I mean, obviously porn isn't the biggest issue in the world, but the logic of voting to restrict other people's freedoms because "I know I'm right and people need guidance" has lead to things like all of the issues muslim women face, the Inquisitions, male/female genital mutilation in Africa, etc. etc.

If you can't convince people that watching porn is bad and they shouldn't do it, so you are forced to instead attempt to vote them into submission, then maybe you need to reevaluate why it's wrong in the first place

One last thing - to the people voting for/who would vote for this based on biblical reasons - would you vote for the following government sanctioned programs:

1. Clinics to cut off the hands (Matthew 5:30), feet (Matthew 18:8), or eyes (Matthew 8:9) of people who sin?
2. Sanctioned executions of children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9)?
3. Government sanctioned marriages of 1 man and 1 women, or 1 man and 1 slave, or 1 man, 1 women, and a couple of concubines, or 1 man and his brother's widow, or 1 male slave and 1 female slave as chosen by their master? (Numerous examples throughout the Bible)
4. A government sanctioned ban of shellfish (Leviticus 11:9)?
5. Government sanctioned abortions (Exodus 21: 22-25)?
6. Taking away a women's right to vote? (Timothy 2:12)

The answer to all of these is clearly no. If you want to pick and choose which bible versus you pay attention to, go nuts. But the second you start using the bible as justification for public policy, you will end up with crap like that.

I understand where you guys are coming from. What I look at it as though, it is not only that i feel it is disrespectful to my wife to watch this stuff, but also i dont see how watching an 18 year old take it ass to mouth benefits our society.

I wouldn't protest against porn. I wouldn't have an anti-porn sign in my yard or on my car. I wouldn't try and sway family and friends one way of the other.

Yeah, i mean i guess I am not suppose to voice my opinion(A right) if it disagrees with them.

Another thread for another time though.

in his defense, he doesn't mean browbeat into submission.

he will, however, if he is consistent to his earlier stances on things of this nature, vote for a ban on pron. now, while he should not have the opportunity to do so, as issues such as these should never be brought up to vote, clearly, they can. the worst part of this country is that part of the law. i would have liked it better if the supreme court could rule on the constitutionality of a law before it goes to a vote. That way, people wouldn't think that if something passes it should be law...

they get a majority, then pass something unconstitutional, then complain of "activist judges" oppressing them...

it really is unnerving to hear about it all the damn time... when i was a kid, they did some shit like that out here in denver, proposition 2:? i think? they passed a law saying that homosexuals could never be considered a special interest group (pretty bad summary on my part) that passed, but was ruled unconstitutional... all the christians were very hurted. wish it woulda not ever made it to a vote so the re re tardos would never have thought they were even right

You absolutely do not have the ability to limit my constitutional rights to watch porn, drink, etc. Voting for it makes you an agent of tyrrany.

And, for the record, this goes both ways - if someone tried to say ban a certain religion or enforce undue economic regulations, I would vote against that too. It has nothing to do with a conservative/liberal agenda - it simply has to do with enforcing the freedoms the country was founded on.

EDIT: Replace "do not" with "should not" because there is a long legal history in the US of people overstepping their consitutional bounds.

I do vote against that stuff, all the time.

And way to miss the point, by the way.

Here's the problem as I see it. Santorum rants and raves about freedom, liberty and government intrusion into our lives, so what does he do? Proposes censorship and additional government regulations on free speech. I understand that some or many people may be offended by porn, but for goodness sake it's not the government's job to determine what is good for us to look at and what is bad for us to look at. This is a dangerous slippery slope to start going down because you may be in favor of censoring this type of free speech, but what topic is next to get put on the censorship list? Speaking out against the federal government will probably end up on there sooner or later, masked as censoring speech that is detrimental to the USA and supportive of terrorism.

Santorum is soooo absurdly inconsistent. He is in favor of the constitution as long as it isn't contrary to his moral position on issues. He is in favor of reducing gov't spending, as long as he doesnt need to vote for more spending to counter spending that other politicians vote for (i.e. planned parenthood). He is in favor of freedom and liberty, as long as we aren't talking about right to work, searching for jihadists and free speech that goes against his moral beliefs. He is in favor of smaller federal government as long as we arent talking about no child left behind, fighting wars against terrorists, regulating free speech, imposing his own personal morality on our society, raising the debt ceiling, etc.

You have every right to vote on the issues that are important to you and support who you wish and I won't demonize you for that. I disagree with the idea of supporting limits on free speech, because I think that sets us down a very dangerous course, especially with the neverending hunt for jihadists. When a candidate proposes that we need regulations to protect us from ourselves, I think that continues us down the same dangerous course we have been on with that mentality for decades. Just remember that you may like how this particular candidate proposes to limit freedom for the benefit of society, but once you become complicit with the idea of limiting freedom in such a manner the battle is lost. The battle is lost because it sets the precedent for the next guy or gal to come in and start regulating away more freedoms in the name of improving our society according to their vision for what is best for our society. And their vision may be in direct conflict with your vision.

Perhaps you have considered the issue broadly, but if not, I would encourage you to think more broadly than just whether you think a particular outcome is a good thing or not. Think about how we get to that outcome and how that precedent can lead to more government control and regulations over our lives. I'd much rather put up with people having the freedom to behave immorally rather than the alternative of career politicians in DC negotiating, debating and deciding our morality for us.

Not necessarily, but stating you are "all for less government", then stating you would vote for increased government regulations sure does.

So Lamp, it would be okay if I supported a measure preventing half the churches in my city from having services before noon because it occasionally interferes with my ability to get lunch in a timely manner that day?

Actually that would be more understandable because it has an effect on me, unlike the things you want to stop everyone else from doing....