"Sexual liberation"ENCOURAGES the sex-slave market

[Desert Walker]

ARTICLE:
[url="http://www.afajournal.org/2004/april/404culture.asp"]Malevolent Bargains: Slavery continues in the form of forced prostitution[/url]

------------------------------

The "sexual revolution" of the mid-20th century created a global envrionment which, contrary to those who advocated it, has ENCOURAGED the abuse of women by men. The sexual perverts in our time, who FINALLY are protected by LAW in vomiting their filth upon the innocent of the world, have NOT brought liberation and freedom to men and women. They have in fact INCREASED the divide between the sexes.

Does not ANYONE realize that there exists a horrendous sex-slave INDUSTRY in this world!? And yet our government REFUSES to OUTLAW pornography, to OUTLAW immodesty, to OUTLAW perversion!

The founders of America believed that it was the duty of government to "provide for the common defense." Well then, the government is failing in this duty by not making sexual perversion ILLEGAL.

You know what the problem is? You know the obstacle to this? It is this: WE have forgotten that sexual activity outside of the bounds of charitable love set by the Roman Catholic Church is EQUAL in moral gravity to VIOLENCE against another human being! "Oh its just about pleasure!" we say, "Don't be prude!" We urge. Well guess what folks, while we're busy making absolutely sure we're not "being prudes," this social attitude is turning a blind eye to the sexual predators that WE OURSELVES are responsible for cultivating. It is OUR "liberated society" that has given these monsters nourishment.

Therefore:

I declare that we, as a society, need to return to Puritanical opinion of human sexuality. ITS RSERVED FOR HOLY CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE AND [i]THAT[/i] IS PRIVATE.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Desert Walker

[MC Just]

Liberalism is the root of such things. Since being liberal is to be "loose" and so opened minded that your brains literally slip out. People wanted to be "freed" of traditional moral values, so they got rid of them. Liberalism is the cause and root of it all.

[morostheos]

The culture we have now is in reaction to Puritanism. We DO NOT need to go back to a Puritanical society, but we need to accept human sexuality as a gift from God that needs to be used as God intended, not repressed as it was in the Puritan society.

Check out the Theology of the Body. Great insights there.

[Desert Walker]

I see it differently. This society just happened to achieve victory over Puritanism for whatever reason. That fact does not make the victory good.

When societal restraints on human degeneracy are thrown out it is NEVER a good thing. I have no pity, understanding nor empathy for those who thought the Puritanical outlook on human sexuality was so horrible that it deserved bitter annihilation from the world.

Please. The Devil LOOKS for trends among us to throw out restraint. Then he capitalizes on that! And he has! He has!

I have checked out Theology of the Body. I know what it contains. But it is a vast theoretical framework, not yet an applied social norm. We need legal restriction on sexual promiscuity, YESTERDAY! A theoretical framework like Theology of the Body is great, if you actually want to apply restraint to yourself. Few people DESIRE that kind of restraint my friend. Society has a duty to impose it on those who wish it not.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Desert Walker

[morostheos]

I have to disagree. What we need is a conversion of hearts, and a change in culture, not impositions made from the government. Sure, there are some things that should be regulated more strongly (esp. with the porn industry and human trafficking!, gay marriage, abortion), but it is not the government's role to micromanage the lives of it's citizens. Preaching the Gospel and the full truth and dignity of the human being in our daily lives is what is essential.

[Desert Walker]

Yes, bringing about social metanoia through the Gospel is the essential way to make it better. But government regulation of social conduct is PARAMOUNT. You forget that the government is composed of human hearts as well. Legislators are not some inhuman concept, they are men and women who MUST conform their country's laws to the laws of God. Civil restrictions on personal conduct, when those restrictions are not themselves immoral, are INDISPENSIBLE.

If the Gospel comes to dwell in men's hearts, and the laws of men continue to permit anti-Gospel behaviors, then the Gospel ceases to dwell in the hearts of men. It is just a fleeting dream.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 18 2006, 02:54 PM']If the Gospel comes to dwell in men's hearts, and the laws of men continue to permit anti-Gospel behaviors, then the Gospel ceases to dwell in the hearts of men.  It is just a fleeting dream.
[right][snapback]952341[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The Gospel would have ceased to dwell in the hearts of men hundreds of years ago then, because the laws of men have always permitted anti-Gospel behaviors.

It seems like you mistrust the power of God's grace if you think we have to rely on the laws of man to keep us in check with God.

[Desert Walker]

No. I simply wasn't not specific enough in my point. When I said "dwell in the hearts of men," I should have said "and is socially manifested in history." Such a thing is even more transient in human history when civil law is divorced from its religious foundation.

I have plenty of faith in the power of the Gospel to change the hearts of people. But when the people who make the social laws believe that the Gospel (even though their personal lives are changed by it) has no authority ABOVE those laws, the laws reflect that attitude. If the laws men make to govern themselves reflect that attitude society will inevitably degenerate.

[Desert Walker]

Is it unnecessary for men to defend the reign of the Gospel in society with law? Is that not a divine mandate?

[morostheos]

It is necessary not to specifically defend the Gospel through law, but more specifically to defend Natural Law and justice. The Church teaches there should indeed be separation of Church and State, but the common good of all apparent in natural law should be supported by government.

In regards to our duties as citizens, here's a good quote from [i]Deus caritas est[/i]
[quote]The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquish their participation “in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.” [21] The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility.[/quote]

It is my opinion that society is much more affected by the mass media and by the example of individuals than by legislation. I don't think legislating sexuality would ever be effective, it would mainly just serve to make people angry and be less willing to change than they were previously. I mean, seriously, how would such laws be enforced??

[Desert Walker]

Ok. But I still think that immorality (according to Christian standards) could be forced back to its proper social status of "taboo" if civil law was explicitly, verbally against it. Or at least that is part of what is necessary to force it back down.

[MichaelFilo]

Are you so sure that a law is what makes something taboo? Sure, I agree, the laws of the land reflect most especially on the ethics of the land, but making laws to contradict the ethics of the inhabitants will not result in a mass societal change.
The most obvious example is our drug culture, especially marijuana. It is a widely used in the US, and although no state has yet allowed it's use for recreational purposes, it continues to have a large group of users. This is interesting as far as trends go because this seems to be the case with other drugs, the laws are hardly causing the druggie to stop, (albiet, I agree, if they were not there, more new users may end up occuring, but I'm not sure if it even puts a complete check on the increase of users).

Anywho, the hearts must be changed, cuase laws can't stop desires. The most obvious example, of course, is suicide. It's illegal, but people still commit the act, it is of little hinderance to know that it is an illegal action. The only difference is if it were legal, more people would do it, as it would become socially acceptable. However, this doesn't work in reverse logic. If something is acceptable, no law can make it unacceptable, an honest to goodness change must happen in the people's heart (note Alcohol and Prohibition).

God bless,
Mikey

[Didacus]

May God have mercy on us all.

[avemaria40]

Ted Bundy testified to the negative influence of pornography so I'm not surprised at all that this is happening. It is horrible and it's hard to believe that the world has come to this.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

I am with Pope JPII: The problem with pornography is that it does not show enough. It doesnt show the beauty and wonders of the creation of human sexuality.

Sex should be a private matter. It is the parents responsiblity to teach their children about sex, NOT society. Kids should not have to get their first experience of what sex is from their friends, MTV, or society in general.

Parents need to be comfortable enough in their own sexuality, and not just try to "protect" and hide their children from it, until their friend one day shows them pornography, and they explode and become addicted.

If sex is hidden out of fear (which is the impression i get from puritans), and guilt and shame, that sex is dirty, it will never work. Another "sexual revolution" will just be waiting to happen.