Sooo,

If you are a Christian and you believe in the "Free Will" concept, justify supporting society legislating against "immoralities" that are morally/ethically defensible.

I.E., homosexual acts/marriage, abortion, pornography, etc.

Although I am a Christian, I have a hard time voting for people who support making acts/circumstances/situations illegal on purely "moral" bases, bases that do not stand up to a test if religious beliefs are not considered.

I'm jewish, so my opinion may not be what your looking for, but here goes:

In the Talmud, it says that homosexuality, mainly on the male side, and those who participate in Gay acts should be killed (usually by pouring molten lead down your throat). However, the Rabbis have gotten rid of that. As far as I know, there is no law against abortion or pornography.

I actually have no problem with any of these things. Free will should concur all.

FYP

Donk,
There are more issues than morality here. And as Christians we can support or not support what we feel is best for our community without using our religion to justify it.

Pornography has created social problems for every communtity it is introduced to. In Ohio they banned it in entire counties and watched all the crime rates drop by as much as 75%.
I talked to the man that started the whole movement, and he said his support is wide spread from Catholics, Jews, Feminist, Mormons, etc. And it started when a member of his church's daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered. This started him to find out why someone would do this, and pornagraphy was a root cause in this case. ( I know not all people that look at Playboy are going to hack off someones arms, so leave that in the kiddie section)

So a law that limits or bans pornography is a community decency issue, not a religious issue.

Homosexuality is a more complex issue.

Abortion is pretty clear cut, you either believe a fetus is a baby, or not. Since right now we can kill the baby one second before birth, I think our laws are evil. Change them to moment of viability and we have an arguement.

And how exactly did they determine this? They found a porno in his house and therefore he killed because of the porno or something silly like that?

Are you honestly telling me that this rapist and murder would not have committed a crime if he hadn't read a porno?

You're right, he would have lived a normal, peaceful life. It's not like he had serious chemical imbalances in his head or anything.

Really, this is ludicrous.

if you assume that incidences of rape would increase due to pornography,
then you almost have to be wrong. the data is overwhelmingly against you.

pornography has skyrocketed in the last 25 years, yet
rape has seemingly decreased significantly(although rape statistics
are extremely unreliable)

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...al/14856596.htm

you dont have to like pornography, but tying it to increased crime is nonsensical.

What the fuck does that sentence mean? (bolded sentence 1)


Who determines decency? (bolded sentence 2) I may think it's decent to have anal sex in the middle of the street. Religion does set bounds for what's decent and what isn't I think that's a problem.

Note to self: If ever hanging out with Petoria, avoid streets!