They might be and also they should be. You know enhance customer service and all that.

Non-torture adult porn is essentially harmless. Child porn is the violation of a child. One does not necessarily "grow" from the other, especially since child porn is a heavy taboo, and adult porn is produced largely for money.

What do you consider immoral? Personally, I'd consider child pornography immoral, but adult pornography, largely not. It's when it starts getting into the films where they beat up or torture women -- that's where I'd draw the line personally.

But that's me. Where's your line?

It is false to think that Internet pornography -> promiscuity -> STDs -> world population reduction.  Humans, being a social creature, are naturally promiscuous but we can be monogamous as well.  STDs are spread quicker by promiscuity, but we can have safer promiscuity by using condoms.  We also have modern antibiotics for most STDs.  AIDS is a huge problem in Africa, but they don't have universal access to Internet porn like we do here in the developed world.  So your thought chain doesn't work in Africa.

A war on Internet porn is like planting trees in your yard and wondering why there' are leaves everywhere.  Humans have sex and it's on the Internet because it's what humans like to talk about.  You must be aware that sex is needed for the human species to survive.  Sex is so important to us, that we use our technology to enhance it. Should we ban Viagra too?

When you talk about morality and sex, it's a slippery slope from the beginning. Some people find the act of two unmarried people having sex to be immoral. If one person has sex with several other people and uses the appropriate protection, what is immoral about it if nobody is hurt?

How about one question at a time?

You just assumed yourself through that entire question.

Assumption 1: pornography leads to widespread sexual promiscuity

Assumption 2: widespread sexual promiscuity leads to the creation of STDs

Assumption 3: STDs reduce the world's population

1. Dunno

2. I used to work in a medical testing facility. So many people have STDs that you could hardly add to the number by watching porn. Seriously.

3. Why would there be so much sexual disease in areas with growing populations?

Now you're just being silly.

It’s a matter you learn earlier and earlier in life when you’re not emotionally/mentally prepared for it. The Internet is therefore guilty for supplying the product… that’s why schools block porn from their computers.

Agree with you, but who will be the teacher to your children?

I think its a terrible idea not to tell kids about sex from the time their born. Ok, maybe not that young but as soon as they have the brain function to know what you're saying. Sex is just another essential part of life! That's all! Nothing more! This reminds of the play Spring awakening in which the characters, who are children just starting pubery, end up in all sorts of terrible sexual situations just becuase of the plan fact that they have no idea what sexuality is. It was written in the early 1900 (maybe late 1800's I forget). I would like to point out that back then, unlike now, kids didnt learn about sex until a much later age. Back then people thought that teaching kids about sex as early as 13 would make them crazy and immoral and all that. Guess what we teach 11 and 12 years olds about sex (maybe youunger now but that's when I learned about it in school) and theit no more immoral than people from the 1900's. The critic in Spring Awakening is to teach adolesents about sex, now a days its about teaching kindergarteners and other young children. I'm willing to bet that if we teach kids about sex in kindergarten it'll have no more an impact on their adult lives as if they learned at 13.

Google promotes everything in the pursuit of profits. They are the ultimate in tolerance such that profits can be generated.

Agree.

 I get so tired of this line of thinking.  Really, I do.

Let's get a couple of things straight before we start answering questions about Google, ok?

1. Is there any credible evidence that porn, in and of itself, is inherently harmful to anyone?

2. If Yes, exactly what about it is harmful, and to whom?

3. If No, why are we talking about this?

If it is harmful, yes, that would justify calling it wrong, or, if you like, 'immoral'.

If the people involved are being forced to do things they do not wish to do, that would also make it wrong in most people's eyes, also.

But if your wife had no problem personally with doing that, and fully understood what was going on, what would be inherently 'wrong' or 'harmful' about that?

EDIT: Your wife would presumably be aware of your disgust with the very thought of her doing such a thing, and would normally value your continuing  relationship, so even if she personally did not have a problem with it, I would expect she would not do it out of consideration for your sensibilities.

These are the sort of considerations, ethical guidelines if you like, which are appropriate, In my opinion, to decide on whether any action is acceptable.

If someone is ok personally with 'performing' in some act considered typically 'pornographic', and noone else involved is being forced to participate, and there is no-one she values as a close friend or partner who has a problem with it, and she is assured that all reasonable measures will be taken to have the film or video clearly identified and measures taken to restrict ready or accidental access to it by people who might be offended or psychologically harmed in some way, then there should be no ethical or moral problem with it. Especially if it allows people to have pleasure without any risk to themselves or partners, and so brighten their lives, especially if they have no other ready options for sexual release, it can be regarded as a positive good.

Personal repugnance at the thought of some acts should not qualify as a reason for prohibiting such acts, although it would be reasonable to ask that measures, such as labels and warnings, to allow you to avoid accidentally stumbling across an unwelcome viewing.

Even the thought of women partaking in various quite inoffensive activities, even many ordinary jobs, once used to raise feelings of disgust and even horror from men in the past.

In logical parlance, you're begging the question.  You're basically saying it's wrong because it's wrong.  That's not how things work in the objective world.

What's wrong with a person seeing their own relative having sex?

So you are saying: That which is offensive is immoral.  Ok.  I'm offended by people who have more than two children.  Is having more than two children immoral for that reason?

It is offensive to Muslims to draw cartoons of Muhammed.  Is it therefore immoral for everybody?  Or... do you see how you're inventing a sensibility for yourself and imposing it on everybody else?

So what?  Your mother likes sex.  Your mother likes people to admire her body and to lust after her.  She's human, just like Pamela Anderson.

Immorality is subjective: is that what you’re selling?!…
There are people, though, with higher morality than others.
If a woman President or First Lady were splashed on the Internet in indecent "backside up" position, the nation would cry out against it. Or not?
What’s immoral?
A woman menstruating in public, with blood run down her legs?!…
Please!!!…

Morality is ultimately subjective, but it is not purely in relation to an individual. It only has meaning in terms of interactions with other members of society.

If ALL members of society were ok with some action and all its implications and effects, it would be meaningless to call it immoral. 

If SOME people are offended by some behavior, that still doesn't justify calling it immoral. If others are aware of their aversion to something, and still openly carry on such behavior in their presence, without taking some care to do it in front of the 'sensitive' person, that is arguably not 'good' practice, depending on the details.

For example, if I openly discuss my atheism in the presence of a devout believer, they could be expected to take offense at that, but I would not necessarily consider that 'wrong' assuming I was not being gratuitously mocking and ridiculing of the beliefs. I find aspects and implications of typical religious beliefs offensive and 'wrong', so I see nothing wrong in politely making my point of view clear, even though it will most likely offend the believer. This is because I believe that the more such people and others in general are aware that there are thoughtful individuals who see serious problem with such belief, the more likely (if only to a tiny extent) will it be that more rational attitudes will prevail. This is of course my opinion, but it involves issues of free speech, tolerance of different points of view, in both directions - ie the believer's objection to atheism should not automatically take precedence over my objection to religious belief - and relative levels of offense or harm. This latter point means that I believe that my concerns about religion deserve more weight than the issue of avoiding the discomfort the believer may feel at hearing such views expressed.

At the other extreme, there may be some psychopaths who have no problem with murder, but since the vast majority of people would rather seriously object to such an act committed against themselves or others they care for, and by definition it is against the will of the victim, and it is manifestly an act which if it occurred at all frequently would massively disrupt, even destroy, society, it is widely considered a seriously wrong, ie 'immoral' action. Even here, there are potential complications and conditions. Killing another person is not universally regarded as immoral in all circumstances, whether it be in war, self-defense, capital punishment, etc.

So morality is best regarded as a consensus in a society, and there are going to be disagreements about the morality of even some of the most extreme acts, so we must remain prepared to both defend our own moral precepts, and be prepared to concede when overwhelming counter arguments are presented. It should be the subject of an ongoing debate/discussion, which it already is, to a growing extent (I hope).

It should be based on guidelines, not fixed prohibitions of specific acts or categories of action.

Considerations like degrees of physical harm or mental distress or suffering caused to others, coercion or force or emotional manipulation of others to impose your own desires upon them, and broader principles such as the implications for society at large, and so on.

You inadvertantly set up a ridiculous number of possible jokes here. I'm going to see if anyone runs with it.

Oh, it wasn't inadvertant at all.  I call that "running it up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes."

"All are above average" has to be some sort of sarcastic remark, but I don't quite get the point...

 Seriously... what the hell are you talking about?

What about chicken fucking? Is that a violation too?