Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.
"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."
Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.
"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick ... 33811.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hahaha

Michelle Bachmann also wanted to ban ALL porn.

Tell me again how the rabid right doesn't want to set up a theocracy based on their fucked up version of Christianity?

This guy is incredible. You have to credit him for him sticking to his beliefs and such. But damn. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry, good luck getting rid of it.

Cap'n C just won't even consider climbing on the Santorum band wagon now..

Sad..

Crazy, but let's be fair - it's not just religious groups that oppose pornography. There are some nanny-statists and some feminist groups that oppose it, too. After all, there are countries more secular than the US that have far more restrictions on it- China, Iceland, Australia, and Sweden to name a few.

Maybe we can just blur out the naughty bits, like the Japs?

Wouldn't I be far more likely to commit violence against a woman in order to see some tits if I couldn't just go online & see them for free?

dbackjon wrote:"It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

Does anyone here refute that part of it?

dbackjon wrote:Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.
"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."
Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.
"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick ... 33811.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Porn saves marriages

Many women consume it too.

Utah leads the nation in porn consumption.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:"It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

Does anyone here refute that part of it?

Yup.

dbackjon wrote:Tell me again how the rabid right doesn't want to set up a theocracy based on their **** up version of Christianity?

I think they do - I don't think that's ever been a question. Thankfully, the rabid right is small in overall numbers and would never be able to do that. Having a guy like Santorum reach the number 2 position in an extremely weak GOP field and still have no chance of being the nominee in an election where the Dem incumbent is likely to win comfortably anyway doesn't get me too worried - Santorum is a whacko who won't ever be close to be President.

With that said, and in no way am I saying it ever should be banned because in this country I don't think it should be (or even restricted any more than it is today) but what whacko Santorum says about the ills of pornography aren't really all that far from the mark - it does help create an atmosphere where all those other things are more possible and more readily present. Of course, the absence of pornography doesn't make other places less misogynst (think Iran - not a lot of legal porn there and yet women are still second class) but for a lot of people it's hard to separate the porn from real life.

But like I said - it's legal here, it's always going to be legal here, and I don't think that will change nor should it.

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.
"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."
Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.
"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick ... 33811.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Porn saves marriages

Many women consume it too.

Utah leads the nation in porn consumption.

Hey, leave me out of this!

Vidav wrote:

89Hen wrote: Does anyone here refute that part of it?

Yup.

So it does not contribute to either? Really?

89Hen wrote:

Vidav wrote:
Yup.

So it does not contribute to either? Really?

How does porn contribute to violence against women?

89Hen wrote:

Vidav wrote:
Yup.

So it does not contribute to either? Really?

Any evidence to back that up?

State the claim, state the facts supporting the claim

For some women, pornography is a good thing.

youngterrier wrote:

89Hen wrote: So it does not contribute to either? Really?

Any evidence to back that up?

State the claim, state the facts supporting the claim

For some women, pornography is a good thing.

I suggest you read the quote again. There's a big gap between "contributes" and "is the root of" or "always".

Go watch the Penn and Teller Bullshit! Episode on the War on Porn.

Vidav wrote:Go watch the Penn and Teller Bullshit! Episode on the War on Porn.

If you're implying that I'm against porn or want to ban it, please read my claim again.

89Hen wrote:

Vidav wrote:Go watch the Penn and Teller Bullshit! Episode on the War on Porn.

If you're implying that I'm against porn or want to ban it, please read my claim again.

I'm not. They just address those same claims on the show.

Vidav wrote:

89Hen wrote: If you're implying that I'm against porn or want to ban it, please read my claim again.

I'm not. They just address those same claims on the show.

I tried pulling it up on YT, but work did a kick save. I seriously doubt there have been many reliable studies one way or the other on this topic. It's only logic that would tell you that it is a contributing factor to those issues. If one person is affected that way, it's a contributing factor.

Yeah I wouldn't watch their show on a work computer. . .

Where was this 'outrage' when the 'progressives' were banning salt, trans fatty acids, Happy Meals, etc?

Baldy wrote:Where was this 'outrage' when the 'progressives' were banning salt, trans fatty acids, Happy Meals, etc?

Just partisans being partisans - complaining about something partisans from the other party do and then ignoring the same thing when their own party does it. Sometimes Dems and GOP'ers are amazingly similar in doing.