Of course, male prostitutes would be a threat to Peter's morals.
(Or would he be a "John")
I was interested by a comment by juli k* and Padawan on some hospital workers who employed a prostitute to screw a horny, terminally ill adolescent and in particular Padawan's response that he couldn't see any moral objection to it!
If you have no moral objections to prostitution, presumably it should be legal? Should this occur? Is the law imposing morality on pimps, whores and curb-crawlers?
Peter.
*To her I'd say "welcome back", I guess. I always thought your posts were among the most thoughtful and open-minded, and I was surprised to see you return as soon as I was banned. I must ask, if it was the rudeness of some of my posts you objected to, then why come back at a time when there are numerous people allowed on RM who are far ruder? In retrospect, I can see that the main problem with me was that I let people confuse my normal, brazen and bluntly honest posting style with the flame wars that often followed when certain Liberals decided that my views merited vicious personal attacks - and those were certainly flame wars in which I was as happy as anyone to participate in, and not as sensible as the sanest posters in avoiding. But your sudden returns suggests you accept the absurd myth that I was the sole cause of conflict on Religious Musings, and that people like Webber, Benn, MarkN, SLUGBUG and others were innocent of flaming simply because they were in the majority. Of course the flaming goes down when there is no one to challenge liberal views, but what else is going to happen? If someone else with radically different views turns up on RM and they start flaming again should that sole person be banned? Anyway, just wondering. It may be a total coincidence, of course, in which case my idea of feeding like a vulture on unfair bans is completely untrue. I don't know.
Yes, prositution should remain illegal, as it is a public health threat and a threat to public morals. If it would become legal, it would be taxed and made legitimate. It must remain illegal, if for nonthing else, to state as a society this is not a acceptable practice, profession, or way of life. However it will always be around.
Sex is legal. Selling stuff is legal. Why is selling sex illegal? Matt, in Nevada were it is legal and regulated the public health threat is practically nil. (Hey, I can get VD without paying for the privledge.) Of course Nevada has no morals for it to threaten.
Of course, male prostitutes would be a threat to Peter's morals. (Or would he be a "John")
Um sorry to burst your bubble, but sex is wrong whether the prostitute is the same gender as you or not. Why you think I should deviate from this most obvious of rules I do not know.
And the answer is that society rightly places a different role on sex than other things. Sex should not be a commodity to be bought and sold, and it should be an expression of love and care. Society has the right to make the law in such a way as to do this, especially considering it has to foot the bills for the divorce, abortion and family breakdown that the removal of love from sex entails. Decent people have a right to protect themselves from the social damage done by turning sex into a meaningless commodity, and creating a society where pleasure is the only good, and for which any means can be sacrificed.
Peter.
Is the law imposing morality on pimps, whores and curb-crawlers?
Actualy pimps are a bi-product of it being illegal. If it was legal the girls wouldn't need a criminal to bust heads if someone didn't pay or got abusive. They could use the legal system.
Yes, prositution should remain illegal, as it is a public health threat and a threat to public morals.
the public health threat is another thing that exists because it is illegal. If it was legal (like Nevada) we would have safety standards and regular checkups to make sure that no one had VD. Their isn't much to say about the public morals arguement. The question just comes down to what you think is more important. Does ending the public health risks assocated with it, and making is safer for the girls (no longer having to work for leg breaking thugs) outweigh the damage to the "moral fabric" of society.
If you have no moral objections to prostitution - Peter
Now, now, Peter, I said nothing of the kind. I said I have no objection to it being given to a boy who is about to die, since he can not be affected by it: It cannot harm him psychologically or physically, nor can it corrupt his views on sexual relationships later in life. And I didn't say I had no moral objection, I said I couldn't think of one. I am sure there is one, but I might just be an irrationally disturbed by it.
Your argument has the following problem. You all assume the seller creates the Market. The buyer creates the market. There's not a segment of the population that says "Gee, I want to become a sex worker when I grow up. (Except on Maury)" The problem with vices isn't that they exist, it's that people use them.
Sex and selling stuff may be both be legal, but so are alcohol and tobacco. Neither is legal to sell to minors. An similar argument could be made for child porn.
So, if under legalized prositution, a woman refuses to follow through on a contract for sex, the government would have to force her to go through with it? This is the legitimacy argument. If you put in the realm of public regulation, it gives it legitmacy. How does a "reputable firm" deal in whoremongering and still remain reputable. Prositution was at it's height It's sort of like why the puritans opposed bear baiting.
That sums you up, Peter.
And a ridiculous misquotation sums up your worth in this debate too.
I do admit I should have been clearer and said "Paying for sex is wrong whatever the gender of the prostitute". but this meaning was obvious from the context.
Peter.
Peter: Society rightly places a different role on sex than other things. Sex should not be a commodity to be bought and sold, and it should be an expression of love and care. Society has the right to make the law in such a way as to do this...
Luigi Novi: Using that logic, we should make sex out of marriage illegal too.
Matt Pesti: So, if under legalized prositution, a woman refuses to follow through on a contract for sex, the government would have to force her to go through with it?
Luigi Novi: Matt, wouldn't the woman just give the guy back his money? It's not like this would be a convoluted court case. Many establishments retain the right to refuse service to whomever they want. Why wouldn't a prostitute?
You all assume the seller creates the Market. The buyer creates the market.
Sometimes, but you neglect the power of marketing. Also, it cannot be argued that the "buyers" of addictive products like cigarettes "create" the sustained market for them.
And btw, what do you think of those other countries where it is legal?
Using that logic, we should make sex out of marriage illegal too.
Well your flaw there is assuming that both of these things are equally serious. Visiting a prostitute is making a perfectly clear statement of your valuation of sex as nothing more than a cheap thrill to be bought from anyone willing. There is no love involved. Advertising would be a virtual certainty and even if it were banned the brothels themselves would be most likely very much designed to attract people. The effect on society is much worse than private sex without commitment that may or may not include love. Even though both are ideally to be discouraged, only the legality of one seriously threatens the morals and decency of a civilised society.
Peter.
And as for Pesti's point, it is an excellent one. It is not could enough once you have agreed to provide a service to someone merely to pay them their original fee back. A contract says "I will do this in exchange for x sum of money" not "I will do this in exchange for x sum of money or give you the money back at whim". What is the solution to women who change their mind? Raping them seems the only option for a judge once prostitution is legalised. It is hard to imagine a more degenerate society.
Peter.
It's perfectly simple to write into a contract a clause stating that the person selling the good or service has the right to back out of the contract at any time, no questions asked. Perfectly simple, perfectly legal, and it would neatly prevent the problem you describe above.
Who in the hell uses contracts for prostitution anyway? Does this actually happen? I don't see any point of reference for this. I wasn't aware people did this now, and even if they did, a contract entered into for an illegal act is null and void under the law. If you're conjecturing that contracts would be used if it were legalized, my question is, why? Why would it be any different than it is now. Since when does legalization equal contracts?
I also don't see what Juli posting has to do with a "return," or what it has to do with you. Many people abstain from posting for a time, and then come back when they have the time. Why do you assume her posting, even if you want to call it a "return" necessarily has anything to do with you? Just a tad egocentric, don't ya think?
I also don't recall anyone being ruder on this site than you, nor anyone attacking your views. It's your rude and insulting behavior toward others that is objectionable, and which has no place in a friendly debate with others, not your "views."
I happen to be in favor of decriminilizing it, as well as drugs. I won't go into the details of why I beleive this, since Peter and Pesti would ignore them anyway. I'll simply sum it up thusly.
So, if under legalized prositution, a woman refuses to follow through on a contract for sex, the government would have to force her to go through with it?
Once again, not quite. For example if I enter into an agreement with a guy to re-do the floor in my house something comes up and he fails to show up I don't give him the money and I get someone else to do the floor. Or for another example I work at a restaurant; if a customer comes in whom I don't want to serve I can walk right out the front door at any time that I choose and go find another job. If this crazy hypothetical is the best you can do you're reaching. On the other hand if someone gets sex from a prostitute and than does not pay the government can force him to just like if someone walked out on a restaurant check or left a dentist appointment without paying. I know of no where in the service industry where you can’t refuse service by refunding the full price to the customer, why would this be any different?
BTW Prostitution is legal in Holland.
I have never understood why people use the argument that because we can never stop a crime completely we should legalise it. It is used constantly in favour of legal whores and cocaine, but strangely not theft, murder, rape or robbery.
Who has ever suggested that there will one day be a society where no one ever pays for sex, kills his fellow man or steals? Of course all crimes will continue. Why that justifies legalising them I do not know. The "you can't stop it" point is nonsense.
Peter.
If anyone who's not already an RM member would like to continue this discussion there (where it did originate, you know) then email me for a password and you're in, with the one obvious exception, of course. All I ask is that y'all just please be cool, ok?
I have never understood why people use the argument that because we can never stop a crime completely we should legalise it. It is used constantly in favour of legal whores and cocaine, but strangely not theft, murder, rape or robbery.
Because drugs and whores aren't crimes with inocent victems. Rape, robbery, murder, ect. are. Some of use believe that adults should be alowed to do anything that they want (no matter how self-distructive) as long as it harms no one else.
Well the "victimless crime" argument is a worthwhile one to some extent, but is has nothing to do with legalising something just because it can never be eliminated entirely. It is illogical to say that we should ban murder despite never being able to eliminate it while saying we should legalise cannibis because we are unable to eliminate it.
As for prostitutes, I believe she and the client are victims. The consent is a strong argument against prosecuting them, but not an overwhelming one for me, because the damage done to society is great, and so everyone else suffers indirectly. And of course the damage done to marriages and other relationships mean individual harm too. With drugs, the same is true. Society is harmed, and so therefore are all its members. But everyone who cares for the drug addict is harmed too.
Peter.
Peter, you claim to beleive the 'victimless crime' argument is a valid one, yet when replying to Mr. Fitzgerald, you ignore it, and continue to act like, well, you, when you continue to equate marijuana with murder.
If drugs were legal, evil drug dealers would lose power and disappear. The murder rate would drop.
On that same token, drug dealers wouldn't be able to arbitraily raise prices of the illegal drugs, and no one would break into homes or mug people to get money to pay for their habits. Theft would drop.
In safe houses, people who take PCP and the like can be givien private rooms with punching bags to vent the violent aftereffects on rubber walls and other things that can take a beating, until the man calms down. Murder again goes down, as (most likely) will rape.
My party, the one you call the Looney Fringe, disagrees with mys atnce. They say that with legalization of drugs, and treatment over incarceration, studies suggest crime nationwide would only fall 20%. ONLY 20%? I don't know about you, but 20% drop is quite impressive. And let's not forget that with the advent of advanced car tracking and alarm system yet another crime, auto theft, has dropped small but signifcant percentages over recent years. And with more well trained police officers just sort of wlaking around high risk areas, not relaly doing anything except trying to stay awake, can reduce some crime just by standing there. So, all totaled, that 20% goes an awfully long way doesn't it?
With drugs, the same is true. Society is harmed, and so therefore are all its members. But everyone who cares for the drug addict is harmed too.
What about alcoholics? That's legal. Should we ban that too?
Peter, you claim to beleive the 'victimless crime' argument is a valid one, yet when replying to Mr. Fitzgerald, you ignore it, and continue to act like, well, you, when you continue to equate marijuana with murder.
Actually I said it was "worthwhile to some extent", so as to distinguish it from the "we can never be totally secure in this fortress so let's drop the drawbridge and throw our weapons into the moat" argument that states that laws should only be applied if they can be sure to stop all cases of that crime, which is a nonsense. I dealt with the argument in the second paragraph of my last message.
Brian, alcohol does cause a lot of pain and sadness, and for me it only goes to show why introducing a lot of worse substances in the form of hallicinagenic, toxic narcotics would be even worse. I don't see much merit in the argument "Look at the damage alcohol does: it has done real damage to so many lives as a legal substance. So let's allow cannibis and LSD too!" I admit that this position may not be 100% consistent, but it is realistic and practical.
Peter.
LOL MarkN. Spamming your own forum elsewhere probably isn't going to win you many friends. It was dumb to set the default setting as "banned" in the first place if that was your problem.
Peter.
I don't see much merit in the argument "Look at the damage alcohol does: it has done real damage to so many lives as a legal substance. So let's allow cannibis and LSD too!" I admit that this position may not be 100% consistent, but it is realistic and practical.
Actualy my arguemnt is that Cannibis is less harmfull that Alchohol. No one gets stoned and beats their kids or wife. Alcohol makes people violent, while cannibis makes you mellow. My arguement is not "give in because you can't stop all of it". My arguemnet is that keeping it illegal does more harm than making it legal would do.
Brian,
I agree with you on drugs. I live in a real bad part of the city. Drug dealers fear not any laws. They fear competition. If you could buy a pack of joints at the 7-11 (That's a conveince store chain here in the States) you'd know they weren't laced with God knows what, they'd be cheaper (lessons in supply and demand anyone?) so you wouldn't have to rob the store first, and the thugs on my street would be out of business. Where is the downside?
BTW, the same argument goes for Prostitution (especially since most Hookers are trying to get the cash for a "fix".)
William Berry: Brian, I agree with you on drugs.
Luigi Novi: Personally, I tend to agree with Brian when he's sober. But that's just me.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Good writings on drug legalization and prostitution, by a friend of mine, in her writings (rants) section. I must say, she's got some great points.
Luigi Novi: Personally, I tend to agree with Brian when he's sober. But that's just me.
You should see me when I'm drunk (or otherwise F***ed up) I'm a whole lot of fun.
Reputable dealers. Like the Tobacco comapnies? Again, how does any reputable dealer sell Crack and still remain reputable (Other than by bringing Oreos and Kraft to the world)? Weren't these drugs legal at one time? Why were they banned? Drug use isn't a mark of freedom. It's a mark of stupidity.
Same reasoning. How can anyone remain reputable and whoremonger? What are the carrer advancements in that field? And really, what would it do to how our society views women?
(Note: In Matt's world, which is to say, your world, because your world shall become my world, because I ,Matto Jojo, shall take over the world, Smoking is a nasty vice with no redeeamble qualities. Alcohol isn't that bad, if used in moderation, which is to say, used in limited amounts with other foods. However, if smoking is as bad, which is to say, it's targeted at kids and causes cancer, it should be banned, which is to say, eliminated in this country. So says Matt, for I, Matto Jojo know all!)
You know, sometimes I really worry about him.
Matt,
Reputable dealers. Like the Tobacco comapnies? Again, how does any reputable dealer sell Crack and still remain reputable (Other than by bringing Oreos and Kraft to the world)? Weren't these drugs legal at one time? Why were they banned? Drug use isn't a mark of freedom. It's a mark of stupidity.
So, should stupidity be a crime? Should Mommy State keep her wittle citizens safe fwom demselves.
As for the reputable dealers, the 7/11 with malomar bars and actual police protection and the Dept. of Health making sure they clean the coffee urn once in a while and the pack of cigarettes that have a warning that reads "Are you nuts? This stuff will kill you!" (or word to that effect) is more reputable than "Tony" who might lace the pot with LSD and try to get you hooked on harder stuff or just get it mixed up with the oregeno before he moves out and you can't find him.
(Hey, Only compound-complex setences can save the world from Matto Jojo's clutches. That is too say that he, Matto Jojo, can be distracted into trying to fathom them and he, Matto Jojo, will because of his, Matto Jojo's, superior intellect. Furthermore, his reading of compound-complex setences, of the true variety where each part of the compound is complex in its own right, can make him, Matto Jojo, forget his plans for world domination, despite his superior intellect, as he, Matto Jojo, decides he, Matto Jojo, must reply in a a concise manner worthy of one that has a superior intellect (Namely Matto Jojo) so that all may see evidence of his superiority and decide that he, Matto Jojo, must be the most superior intellect on the planet and pay him, Matto Jojo, the respect that he, Matto Jojo, is due as one whose intelect is vastly supierior to a common power puff girl's. Heheheheh.)
Umm, right. You Political and Religious Musings people have a lot of issues to work out. I think I will return to the LICC and propose a wet T-shirt contest to determine who's in charge.
Well, Matt, it looks like we frightened away another one. It's Miller time.
Same reasoning. How can anyone remain reputable and whoremonger?What are the carrer advancements in that field?
What are the career advances in cashiering, waiting tables, or being a theater projectionist? (all jobs I've had)
And really, what would it do to how our society views women?
Would it really change how anyone views women? It's not like we don't have prostitutes now, or than anyone who wants to find one can't.
Just to throw in my two cents worth:
For the most part, we all want to live peaceably. To do so, we must have laws. Laws are based on morality. Morality is based on absolutes. Here is where the division comes in. Who determines the absolutes? If you believe that man determines his own absolutes, then you can have this argument about should prostitution, etc., be made legal. If you believe that a higher power than man (God) determines the absolutes, then you would make laws that conform to God’s absolutes. Considering that this country was founded by a group of men who, while of different religious persuasions, all agreed that there was a supreme Creator who had set forth certain absolutes, you will understand why the laws were enacted to begin with.
Essentially, laws will reflect the people’s standard. In my opinion, it should be God’s standard. My understanding of God’s standard comes from reading the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and the Book of Mormon. In my opinion, the problem with relying on absolutes set by man is that they tend to lack wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, which you don’t usually get unless you’ve lived through it. But God provides wisdom to those who ask Him for it. History has shown that for a country, or even just a family, to survive and thrive, it must be based upon God’s wisdom and standard.
Following God's law being the case where in his law does he say that pedophilia is wrong? I’m not saying that it isn’t just that he never said that, humans did. God also never said polygamy was wrong. As far as I know God never condemned polygamy or pedophilia; who’s laws should we follow in this case?
Assuming that you are refering to the same God as I was: God said that sexual relations outside of the marriage covenant are wrong. As you had to be an adult (never considered less than 12) to be married, there you have the basis for pedophilia being wrong. Polygamy (multiple spouses) has never been condoned. Polygyny (a husband having more than one wife) has had God's approval at various times when He has required it.
I think that's a pretty fine line you're drawing between polygamy and polygyny.
As you had to be an adult (never considered less than 12) to be married
Please provide documentation (Biblical chapter and verse would be nice) backing up this statement.
Essentially it makes no sense to favour things like gay marriage and prostitution, but not other perversions. The liberals' demands are totally arbitrary. For example, what makes gay marriage okay but a man marrying his sterile sister wrong? Why is it that the gender of the person a man marries does not matter but the number of people he marries does? They always want gay weddings but never polygamous weddings. It is arbitrary and meaningless. Most countries in the West have been well served by basing law upon a morality derived from the Bible. Abandon that and you HAVE TO allow all sorts of sickos free reign, and bring down basic ideals of civilisation.
Peter.
They always want gay weddings but never polygamous weddings.
Actually, I could see an argument in favor of this, but the problems with taxation would probably be complex.
It is arbitrary and meaningless. Most countries in the West have been well served by basing law upon a morality derived from the Bible. Abandon that and you HAVE TO allow all sorts of sickos free reign, and bring down basic ideals of civilisation.
Than how come Japan has no problems with polygamy? They aren't based on Christian teachings.
Why is it that the gender of the person a man marries does not matter but the number of people he marries does?
The difference between homosexuality and polygamy is that homosexuality is condemned in the bible but polygamy is not. The problem with polygamy is that if people can marry multiple partners it renders marriage no different that dating several different people at once (not on the same date but a different girl/guy for different days or what have you).
Essentially it makes no sense to favour things like gay marriage and prostitution, but not other perversions. The liberals' demands are totally arbitrary..................Abandon that and you HAVE TO allow all sorts of sickos free reign, and bring down basic ideals of civilisation.
The problem with people like you is that you want to use the bible as a reason to keep from thinking. We've explained the difference between homosexuality and things like polygamy, pedophilia and necrophilia but you just don't have the mental capacity to understand that logic.
Morality is based on absolutes. Here is where the division comes in. Who determines the absolutes? -- gelzyme
You hit it on the head. Who has the pencil that makes the laws. If God (or Goddess or gods and goddesses or nothingness [I think I covered all the bases]) writes laws in flaming letter 10 feet high and there is no question about who wrote them, fine. Otherwise, I'd rather err on the side that allows people (who were supposedly created by God [or whatever] with the ability to decide moral issues themselves) to decide for themselves.
Before Peter posts that that would allow murder I haven't read or heard of anyone who claimed victimizing another is correct. (Yes, Peter, even Stalin and Hitler would say that hurting them [or killing them] is wrong.) By the way, Peter, a man marrying his sterile sister is ok by me. If a sole man marry's 100 women, that is ok by me (as a divorced guy I pity him). (Oh, I'm assuming conscent.) [Sometimes you miss spellcheck more than others.]
Matthew, are you saying that marriage laws should be based on the convenience of Inland Revenue employees?
Brian, Bible is spelled with a capital B.
The problem with polygamy is that if people can marry multiple partners it renders marriage no different that dating several different people at once.
HAHA! So you object to laws that degrade your idea of marriage's sanctity but you support those that make marriage no different than homosexual cohabitation?!
The problem with people like you is that you want to use the bible as a reason to keep from thinking. We've explained the difference between homosexuality and things like polygamy, pedophilia and necrophilia but you just don't have the mental capacity to understand that logic.
I understand it perfectly. That is why I know the differences are totally arbitrary. You can defend normal marriage as an especially important, central relationship, and exclude sexual deviancy in the form of homosexuality, necrophilia etc. But what makes no sense is to value marriage and homosexuality equally and then condemn screwing a sterile sister or polygamy. There is no moral argument in the world that can justify homosexuality but not sterile incest.
William, whether or not God exists is a separate debate, but I don't see why I have any more obligation to accept your atheist, degenerate morality any more then you think you shouldn't have morality based on the Bible. It is obvious to any normal person that paying for loveless sex is wrong. Why base the law on the complete reverse of common sense? You haven't explained why you are so right about brothers and sisters screwing each other that the law should be changed to support what is surely a bizarre belief.
Peter.
So you object to laws that degrade your idea of marriage's sanctity but you support those that make marriage no different than homosexual cohabitation?!
Well, sort of. Marriage is (in my humble opinion) something that is between 2 people who love one another. They enter into an agreement with each other to spend the rest of their lives together. The gender of those people seems far less important than the fact that they love each other enough to agree to such a commitment.
That wouldn't make it equel to cohabitation because in order to end a cohabitation all one must do is walk out the door. Ending a marrage is a bit harder than that.
Brian, I think the book of Leviticus mentions the sexual laws. (Of course, I believe this book came after Lot screwed both his daughters.)
Peter,
I'll tell you why my gogless morality (no Buddha) is more acceptable to you than yors is to me. Yours tells me what I can and can't do. Mine tells you nothing. Yours gives you the law making pencil. Mine gives nobody the law making pencil. I object to you havimg it. Do you object to no one having it? (Of course you do, I forgot who I'm talking to.)
By the way, marriage is a creature of a church, not state. The same rights (tax laws, inheritance laws, etc.) granted by the state in a JP ceremony should apply to person or persons that want to enter into such a contract. The state has no bussiness telling a church what to do (In the United States anyway.)
Peter,
I've seen you get explained the difference between pedophelia and the like were there is no consent possible and homosexual relations were consent exists. (Heck, I banged my head against the wall for a while too.) The difference, in case you are not just obstinate (of course you are, don't I know who I am talking to?) is consent. I say that again without the parenthesis. The difference is consent.
Now I leave you to attend to another Peter: good or evil? chat. I'll let everyone else engage in that game of mental onanism. (Yes, obstinate one, that includes you.)
Not having the time to visit more that once or twice a month, I will leave this as perhaps my final statement in this discussion.
Should prostitution remain illegal in the U.S.? Yes. I believe that it was one of the founding fathers of this country who said that the Constitution was intended for a moral and upright people, and was wholly unfit for any other. I believe it is well documented enough to say that the founding father's morality was based upon Judean-Christian values. Even the agnostics in the group found the truths to be self-evident. (Perhaps b/c the spirit of God is given to every man to know good from evil. But, I digress...) Since Judean-Christian values can be found in the Bible to be opposed to prostitution, it is reasonable to state that prostitution should be illegal in the U.S.
Thank you all, and goodnight!!!
using that logic shouldn't pre-marrital sex be illegal as well?
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson felt that his relationship with Sally Hemmings was allowed under his Judeo-Christian values?
Almost certainly he did. But people make mistakes. What a lot of people forget is that morality is about a code for how people should behave, not how they do behave. I am a bad person and a worse Christian, but that doesn't mean I can't struggle to be better.
Peter.
Yes, but do we give people moral credit for doing things because they *have* to? If I put a gun to your head, march you down to the local chapter of the Salvation Army, and demand that you hand over your Visa card, does this mean that in this instance you were really a perfect altruist? Obviously not, because you did it so you wouldn't die! In this case, it's irrelevant if you would have done it anyway, because you weren't given the *choice* of whether or not to do it. Just some food for thought.
Now, some acts are clearly harmful enough that they ought to be illegal no matter what. Murder, rape, etc. Of course, this is the part where the preceding paragraph doesn't help at all, because you get into the gray area of acts that some may consider bad, but not bad enough to ban, and some may consider as awful as anything. That would be the current argument. Do we allow people to choose to be moral, or do we ban the act because it's so harmful? In this case... um, let's go read a good book, because there is no real answer.
Yes, I am familiar with Kant. The difference is that there is no real way to stop a determined man with enough money from getting a prostitute. The point about making it illegal is to show that it is wrong. It is a decadent, degenerate society that would sanction prostitution and send the message that it is okay. Yes, people would be able to make their choices, but how are they to know that it is wrong in the first place if society and the state are not making it clear to him. Essentially we are removing the moral choice by legalising prostitution because we give it the status of a morally-neutral act. I know some very intelligent people who cannot grasp that sex and morality have anything to do with one another. Just imagine what legalised prostitution would do to encourage this.
Peter.
how are they to know that it is wrong in the first place if society and the state are not making it clear to him. -- Peter
Ever hear of churches? Or should Mama state twake care of awl her wittle citizens.
I forgot Aetheists can't be moral. (Especially if they live in Nevada.)
Churches and Mama are great, but unfortunately, no one ever seems to listen to them. It's hard enough to encourage people to be good when it's difficult for them to go out and do bad things. I'm glad prostitution is illegal. If a person is tempted to go find a prostitute, at least this way it isn't always easy to follow through with. It wouldn't bother me if pre-marital sex were illegal, for that reason.
Of course, that would never be illegal. Practically no one would go for a law like that. But since people are making the laws around here, the laws are typically going to reflect the majority's moral stance (theoretically). For now, at least, most people don't want legal prostitution, and if they do, which I imagine is not unlikely, politicians still don't dare to promote it (even if they go to prostitutes themselves.)
So if you're unhappy with the illegality of prostitution, hope that the country's moral stance changes in such a way that we'll generally accept it. I'll be hoping for the opposite.
Awww, dwa wittle citzens want Mamma state to dweciced fwor dem. You wittle citizwens cawn't twell right frowm wrong. Mamma will keep the big bad tewnptations at bay. Because ywou are dirt wittle citizens who need Mamma's pwotection but will dwo harmful pwoscribed stuff anyway Mama'll cwause the activity to go underground so it can be controlled by the mob and dwug dealers who don't care if Mamma wittle citizens get a wittle VD as long as they get paid.
Repealing the 18th Ammendment didn't get rid of the Mafia people who dealt in liquor. They just found something else to do. Legalizing prostitution could get rid of pimps, but they'd likely go find equally unrespectable work. I don't think crime would go down, ultimately.
Of course, if crime is all there is to worry about, then there's a simple solution. Just legalize everything! No law, no crime. Plenty of unexceptable behavior, yes, but not crime.
Now, please forgive my lousy attempt at witty, dry irony. I'm not saying you want to legalize everything. I'm just saying that I'd rather live in society as it is now, than a society where sex and drugs are even more prevalent, and crime is still around anyway. You may say crime would go down. I honestly don't know. But as far as I'm concerned, unexceptable behaviors would reign.
After the 18th Amendment the mob went into other things were there was a demand and an artificial scarcity. Specifically, drugs, prostitution, and gambling. (Murder is ancillary. If someone was competing with them they killed them [or broke their legs]. [Aside to any lurkers who may think I think organized crime is "natural": The Mafia and other state created monoplies are not about free trade or good capitalism as we know it.])
/i{But as far as I'm concerned, unexceptable behaviors would reign.} -- Duke of Earl Grey
I guess you just think people are too evil and need a nanny in the form of a protective state. I think they are not evil, but the protective nanny of the state is. Never the twain shall meet. When I can stomach all the w's I'll mock your view some more.
Oh, I see my previous post cut off my name. It was William the sarcastic Libertarian who is as sick of "w"'s as you are Berry.
Essentially we are removing the moral choice by legalising prostitution because we give it the status of a morally-neutral act.
And when did it become the state's responsibility to tell the people what is and is not moral? Or, perhaps more correctly (considering the role of the Church in Western societies), when did the state *return* to having that authority?
Really, for someone who claims to be an advocate of freedom, the ideas you espouse are awfully totalitarian.
And here's a good quote on the subject:
Freedom is a terrible gift, and the theory behind all dictatorships is that "the people" do not want freedom. They want bread and circuses. They want workman's compensation and fringe benefits and TV. Give up your free will, give up your freedom to make choices, listen to the expert, and you will have three cars in your garage, steak on the table, and you will no longer have to suffer the agony of choice.
Madeline L'Engle, Walking on Water, p103
Ever hear of churches?
That only takes account of Christians, not everyone else.
And when did it become the state's responsibility to tell the people what is and is not moral?
What do you mean "tell" people? It isn't as if there is need for debate here. Prostitution is immoral. End of story. Only nuts think paying for sex is a good idea. Now laws have to be based upon morality, and consequently the government can use its power to influence people positively, for example by encouraging marriage and discouraging illegitimacy. Similarly, it can work to eliminate prostitution.
Really, for someone who claims to be an advocate of freedom, the ideas you espouse are awfully totalitarian.
Even though what you mean is obvious, totalitarian does have a specific meaning other than "big, bad dictatorial government". Anyway, I recommend "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom if you really think that. I don't mean to single you out, but comments like that do summarise perfectly the point Bloom makes throughout.
Peter.
Peter,
I'll respond to the two quotes of me. I don't know who the third was, but congratulations on replying to him without starting a flamefest.
1) Churches -- Sorry I gues I should include mosques, temples, chapels and others I'm not very aware of. (Maybe the capitalization needs to be changed too. Thanks for being conscientious and tolerant of other religions enough to point that out. (Note: that maybe sarcastic, but it is serious too.)
2) Your confusing legality with morality. This is the political musings board and we are not discussing morality. The place for that is the religious musings board. Since you are banned from RM, you can be forgiven, but expect me to post. (I know you said legality is based on morality but whose morality. There are those that think it is immoral for a woman to be seen in public without a burqua. I don't want that guy to have the law making pencil. [I'm not equating you with the Taliban but I don't want you to have it either.] He (and you) can beleive whatever you want is moral. The right to shake your fist at the immoral, unethical, godless Libertarian ends where my nose begins.)
1) Churches -- Sorry I gues I should include mosques, temples, chapels and others I'm not very aware of. (Maybe the capitalization needs to be changed too. Thanks for being conscientious and tolerant of other religions enough to point that out. (Note: that maybe sarcastic, but it is serious too.)
That *still* leaves out atheists.
This is the political musings board and we are not discussing morality.
Well if you think politics and morality are separate worlds I hope you are in a minority.
I know you said legality is based on morality but whose morality.
I just don't see morality as the subjective mess you do. Morality is not a personal thing. It is an objective matter of fact, as nearly every sane philosopher thinks.
Peter.
Peter,
I was going to say, "Morality is always subjective (and absolute). Your definition of 'sane philosopher' is based on your subjective view." But I recognize your position as religiously based and will back off. I only post now because others may not see that way. (In fact I remember you having that very discussion here.) I suspect you'll get a post with words to the similar to mine. I ask your forbearance if that gets attacked.
By the way implying my views are insane means I must be insane to have them. I've ben called worse and I'm not insulted. Not everyone will act the way I will, however, although they are not $tupid and can think something like that through (often to ends you weren't expecting -- there is a good chance you didn't know you were calling me "insane". [No, that isn't an insult. Everyone is effected by the law of unintended consequences.])
By the way, for informational purposes only (THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK). In the United States we have seperation of Church and State. The church takes care of morality and the State takes care of politics. In theory never the twain shall meet. (You can find many examples where they not only meet but overlap, that's why I said "In theory".)
On the Churches nit. I included athiests. Didn't you see the empty space between the words?
Morality is always subjective (and absolute). Your definition of 'sane philosopher' is based on your subjective view.
Which is an objective statement. Thank you, come again.
And there are sane philosophers who have been relativists, such as Thomas Hobbes. But even if you accept that the view that there is no right and wrong and that "Murder is right" is as valid as its opposite, which is ridiculous when you think about it, you STILL have a theory without any internal consistency, because it is an absolute theory that excludes the existence of absolutes. Relativists say that all views are subjective and have no objective truth, so that means that Objectivists are as right as they are, yet Objectivism is what the theory objectively denies!
Now what it sounds like you are saying is that some people would say that there is nothing wrong with paying for sex with a stranger, and that they would not be wrong to think that - they would just be different in their views ie. we should base the law around nuts who don't believe in right and wrong. I don't agree. Reason dictates that it is wrong to pay for sex with strangers. Who cares what some nut thinks about it?
Peter.
Ok, Peter,
Let me explain it to you. Mullah Akbar says that Allah has told him that women should not be seen in public and if they expose their flesh the must be executed. He thinks that is Absolute (it is universal and the Western devils are evil for not covering their women.) You and I do not think that is moral. I can't say about you or anyone else, but Allah has not talked to me lately. I (and I assume you) base our morality on a different principles than Mullah Akbar. My morality says women should be naked at all times because the nameless one who eats all hath decreed it. (Yes, I'm being silly on purpose. I don't want to tell you what you believe and I find it hard to insult myself.) It is absolute. It applies everywhere, even to the evil clothed Muslims. Mullah Akbar's morality is different relative to mine. You being reasonable have another absolutely correct all the time in any situation morality that is different relative to mine.
Objective? Huh? I even went to my dictionary thinking that I only thought what "objective" meant. How does, "uninfluenced by emotion, surmise, or personal opinion" come into play? I don't get it.
Nit: {"Murder is right" is as valid as its opposite, which is ridiculous} -- Peter
Actually it isn't. If you murder Hit..I mean Stalin's parents before he was born... I don't know which side I'll fall on in that hypothetical debate, but I know the argument that murder in that case is right is not ridiculous.
Sorry, that is definitely silly. I leave in here to point out that someone else (an entirely hypothetical someone else) can use it to confuse the issue and look they are responding to your post. (Heck, I almost fell into it innocently.)
Back on the subject who says it is wrong? You? You also state the must be strangers. What defines a stranger? Does this conversation get them off the hook?
"Hi my name is, um, John."
"Hi, John, my name is Bambi."
What if they've known eachother for six months. Does the type of currency matter? If it is in franks (sorry Euros) instead of Dinner and a movie does that make a difference? If so why? Mullah Akbar says it only matters if he pays her with sheep dung or Rubles. Why do I care what Mullah Akbar says? Why do I care what you say? (Yes, I'm refering to you, but we can use Mullah Akbar again just as well if you'd perfer to keep this hypothetical.) Why does the government enforce one person's opinion and not another's? Before government enforces (we are talking about laws here remember) the wrong opinion (all opinions other than mine are wrong BTW) I'd rather it enforced no one's opinion.
William, I don't understand your point here. You remind me of a time when a sociology teacher lectured us in Philosophy once, mentioned the state of Alabama, which allows marriage at 14, when neighbouring states consider that child-abuse. He said that morality then was just the customs of the time and place and there was bo objective standard of what was right.
Most people in the class swallowed this lovely "non-judgmental" doctrine whole. I simply said to him "Alabama is wrong, though". Then a girl stated that from Alabamanians would think otherwise. I asked her straight out "Why do you think that if two people disagree neither of them can be right?". I say the same to you.
Peter.
And I say to you that if one of them is wrong (The Alabmanian and you) why is the state deciding? (Unless Mama's wittle citizens cwan't thwink for themswelves.)
Because, William, there is no debate over who is wrong. Paying for sex is wrong. I have never heard anyone argue otherwise, because there is no logical argument against it. In other words, the law against prostitution *is* right.
Peter.
But peter, I have explained on several occasions, here and other places, why legalizing prostitution isn't a bad idea. It's not MY fault you've chosen to ignore it, or simply read and go "You're wrong. I say so," then move on as if that was the end of the argument. If I did somethign like that to you you'd be all over me like flies on Falwell.
Read my post again. What I said was that prostitution is wrong, which is true.
Peter.
Peter,
You want to argue the morality of prostitution? write to the state legislature of Nevada. (Maybe Nevad is a completely immoral state.)
Peter: Morality is not a personal thing. It is an objective matter of fact, as nearly every sane philosopher thinks.
Luigi Novi: Peter, the words "objective" and "fact" do not mean who you apparently think they do. Can you provide the source for the definitions of them you think they have here?
Peter: there is no debate over who is wrong. Paying for sex is wrong. I have never heard anyone argue otherwise, because there is no logical argument against it.
Luigi Novi: Of course there's debate over it. We're here. We're disagreeing with you. Many others in society believe it should be legal, and it is legal in Nevada and in some countries. Hence, there is debate.
Again, you seem to equate words and phrases like "objective," "fact" and "there is no debate" as meaning "No, I really think I'm right on this one." That's not what those things mean. "Objective" means to be uninfluenced by personal bias or preconception. "Fact," as it is usually used, refers to empirically-proven things. "There is no debate" means just that. There is no debate over whether the Goodyear Blimp causes lung cancer in pygmie chimps. There is obviously debate over whether prostitution should be legalized.
You also seem to be unable to separate arguments from their conclusions. Just as having a definition of a use the word itself in the defintion is circular and meaningless, Arguing that something holds true, "as nearly every sane philosopher thinks" rather than first establishing that the person is "not sane," self-referential and circular. It pretty much boils down to "This is true, as everone who believes it to be true believes." To simply equate sanity, normalcy, factualness or objectivity with one's own beliefs simply because they connote validity is to ignore what those words mean, and the opposite with those who don't is merely self-serving and condescending.
Well, William, Nevada also allows gambling, drinking and smoking so yes, of course it's immoral. (Insert Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man here.) That's the way it is and we like it!
Ok, so maybe I don't smoke and gave up drinking but hey, I'll play the slots now and then if I get a chance to visit the state, but I'll only play a small fixed amount and not anymore than that.
Cut and pasted from a humerous (alledgedly) tria e-mail I get sent to me.
"At the Mustang Ranch, the famous legalized bordello in Nevada, the workers spent an average of 15 minutes with each client. What a coincidence. That's how much doctors spend with patients these days."
Hello,
to put my two cents worth here:
First of all, of course it shouldn't stay illegal, it should be legalized!
I think that morality and laws should be strictly seperated. Morality is a choice everybody makes for him/herself, about what kind of person he is. Laws are there as rules for society to work. It wouldn't work with murder and theft.
To show the difference between whats right and wrong morally: for some people, its immoral to use a condom for sex, because the pope said so (or because of the reasons given by some religious groups). Other people think its immoral to not use a condom, because of the danger of transmitting diseases like AIDS, or because of overpopluation, they don't want to get pregnant. Both have valid moral reasons, so what is right? It depends on the indivdual choice.
BTW, I think its very interesting that as most of the moral issues have to do with sex, its mostly man who decide to make/ uphold/ not change laws because of moral reasons which are (indirectly or directly) punishing woman: because prostitution is illegal, the women aren't protected.
Also, there is a double standard: A Man sleeping with many women, even whores, is considered a real man, just bursting with mascunility and so on. A woman who admits to having more than one boyfriend is already labeled a whore, as an insult. Nobody thinks: "She is sexually active, she just enjoys it."
Now, I'm a layman and female, and I don't know anybody who admits having been to a whore, so I may not be correct, but in Germany, prostitution is not illegal, but not legal either. A few years ago some social workers made a move to legalize it, so prostitues would pay taxes and social insurance, so when they are too old, they get a pension like everybody else, they get medicaid and so on.
Because Pimps are forbidden, an initative of a few prostitutes who wanted to set up their own organization togehter with social workers - they were tired not only of pimps taking their earnings, they also wanted to be protected from being beaten up by their pimp when they refused a customer, hadn't earned enough or when he was in bad mood - was not allowed, because its against the law.
One shouldn't forget that prostitutes have many different reasons and many appearances. Besides the junkies, hanging around train stations, there are the women who know nothing else, who don't mind, and the high class consorts, who do it when they like it, because they like sex, and can choose the customer. These women will continue, but be better protected.
In Germany, there is a more relaxed attitude among the younger generation. The social workers don't try to convert the prostitutes into nuns, they accept what the woman have chosen as their way of living. If a woman wants out, they try to help, else they offer a cup of tea and an understanding shoulder.
Even the strictest laws can't prevent prostitution, but by making illegal the woman are hurt (because they lack protection), the male customers are never prosecuted.
Yep. Leave Earth for a thousand years and come back, and man may have evolved to the point where he doesn't even take nutrients in throguh a hole in his head anymore, but I can guarantee he'll still be cruisin' down Colfax looking for a knob-shine from somebody named Deseray.
Stop over-crowding our already bursting at the seams courts and prsion of lonely men and broken women who feel the need to buy and sell sex. Let's have a safe building for the hookers and the johns, inspected medically and taxed out the ass (if that isn't enough money to pay off our national debts, I don't know what else could work, apart from not approving every god damned pay raise Congress asks for)!
constanze,
A Man sleeping with many women, even whores, is considered a real man, just bursting with mascunility and so on.--constanze
I beleive you left a word out. Let me fix it for you
A Man sleeping with many women, even whores, is considered a real divorced man, just bursting with mascunility and so on.
Also, there is a double standard: A Man sleeping with many women, even whores, is considered a real man, just bursting with mascunility and so on. A woman who admits to having more than one boyfriend is already labeled a whore, as an insult. Nobody thinks: "She is sexually active, she just enjoys it."
That's what I've always said. Their is no male equilivant of the word slut the closest word would be player, which is a compliment not an insult.
The rest of the country, or the world, for that matter, should legalize and regulate prostitution, just as Nevada and Amsterdam have done. Of course, we don't need to follow Amsterdam's idea of "window shopping", either, where the women flaunt themselves in storefront windows. It should be more discreet. However, I can only imagine the big influx of guys on the street passing out flyers, like you'd see in Las Vegas.
BF,
Their is no male equilivant of the word slut ... -- BF
Wait a minute. I'm an ethical male slut! (Or I would be if given the chance.)
We are getting closer to being equel since "player" is a gender neutral term. I can say "man Gena is a player without sounding foolish" but I can't say "Jeff is a slut" or any similer word about a guy.
Blue, was that by any chance a reference to the book "The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities" 
Constanze, I agree with your post.
I agree with constanze's point as well, although with one major exception.
I think that morality and laws should be strictly seperated.constanze
Whoa, there! This is an issue that has been batted around both PM and RM of late. Put simply, it's impossible to separate morality and law. Consider:
"I think laws against prostitution should be repealed since I don't have a moral objection against paying someone for sex."
All of you nodding your heads with the above, then consider the below:
"I think laws against murder should be repealed since I don't have a moral objection against killing people."
Big difference, isn't it? What makes the first quote "right," and the second quote "wrong"?
In short, trying to argue that a law should be repealed on moral grounds is an extreme slippery slope, and one should be careful about it's use.
The difference is that there is no demonstrable harm in the case of prostitution, whereas in the case of murder, there is.
True. My point was simply to say that you can't argue a law on moral grounds alone.
Sophie,
I have political aspirations and although I believe any answer should not affect the outcome of an election one whit I admit the verb is "should" not "will". Since no answer allows any interpretation to be applied and neither a flat out denial or agreement is a good idea I must respectfully refuse to answer that. (Gee, is that a long "no comment.")
Sparrow47,
If someone is being murdered in a dark alley and officer Bob comes around the corner they might say, "Officer Bob, thank goodness you are here." If some one is paying for sex in that same dark alley way and Officer Bob comes around the corner is it the prostitute or the "John" who says, "Thank goodness you are here"?
I agree with constanze although I know it is my morality that says morality and laws should be distinct. (I better stop before I pencil.)
Matt,
Old post of your from Jan 25th.
Drug use isn't a mark of freedom. It's a mark of stupidity. -- Matt Pesti
I do not believe laws should protect people from themselves. (Even if Mama State woves her wittle citizens so much she has to send them to pwison for their own goodsie-woodsie.)
"I think laws against murder should be repealed since I don't have a moral objection against killing people."
Big difference, isn't it? What makes the first quote "right," and the second quote "wrong"?
The difference is that in prostitution (and gay sex) their is no victim; in murder there is clearly a victim.
Drug use isn't a mark of freedom. It's a mark of stupidity. -- Matt Pesti
Than how come so many rich educated people use drugs?
Sparrow47,
We are often online at the same time or something. My reply is to your post one back.
BF,
Than how come so many rich educated people use drugs? -- BF
Because if you educate a imbecile you get a well educated imbecile. (or a [fill in group to be disparaged here]) Besides, no one has yet cornered the market on $tupidity. (Although many have tried.)
Besides, no one has yet cornered the market on $tupidity.
Quote:Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
-- Albert Einstein
Interesting... that didn't get red-dotted!
Scott, that quote's always been one of my favorites. I agree with it completely.
Don't believe me? Try the following steps:
-Watch Street Smarts (It's a game show, where the host walks around and asks people questions, shows them pictures, etc. It's the same as Leno's "Jaywalking" segment, except two contestants bet on whether that person will get it right or wrong).
-Walk around your local high school; either a suburban-preppy one, or inner-city (mine teeters between both). You'll want to lose all hope.
etc.
I LOVE Street Smarts! It is the funniest game show out there. beats Millioanire and Weakest Link in terms of quality and watchability.