|legalized prostitutionPage 2 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)|
It raised a profound question in my mind. Why is prostitution illegal and adultery not?
Why have the Bible thumping, Pro-Life, Anti- Gay Marrage, crowd not introduced one law against adultery?
I agree with this.
Posted: 6/8/2008 4:48:06 PM
|I think that men that use prostitutes like the idea that it is taboo, against the law and risky... Legal or not, there will always be a black market to fulfill those looking for the thrill ride (so to speak).|
Posted: 6/8/2008 8:51:08 PM
|My stance is to legalize it all and regulate it: drugs, prostitution, and gambling.|
This would cut crime in half overnight and the taxes would pay off the national deficit.
People will always use drugs enjoy gambling and hire prostitutes. Might as well solve the whole issue and cut a bite of crime.
Prostitution is legal in many countries overseas and marriages actually last longer and divorce is less than in the USA.
Not saying that I would necessarily use a hooker but it should be legal.
Posted: 6/8/2008 11:04:29 PM
|Now that we're all grown up, who cares what other consenting adults do in their private lives? |
Just don't hurt or lie to anyone who may be in your life. Be good to and honest with your loved ones and save your wrath for things that matter - poverty, hunger, crime, war, ants invading your kitchen, fruit flies around that old banana on the counter, having to re-do your laundry every week...that kind of stuff.
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:46:13 AM
|America will never legalize prostitution because of it's puritanical|
cultural background. We say sex is OK then villify anyone who is open
and comfortable with it.
In the 70's the star of Deep Throat almost went to prison for a long time just for being in a porno flick.
If you think congress doesn't get things done now, then watch and see if you legalize prostitution...
At least they would be smiling alot on CSPAN!!!
Posted: 6/5/2009 9:35:24 AM
it would prevent the trafficking of human beings into prostitution. Nobody would be coerced into any activity against their free will and could leave the business anytime they wish.
THAT'S TOTALLY NAIVE! Rose colored glasses are wonderful aren't they? But maybe not if you end up on the other side of those lenses.
Posted: 6/5/2009 10:01:30 AM
I think that men that use prostitutes like the idea that it is taboo, against the law and risky... Legal or not, there will always be a black market to fulfill those looking for the thrill ride (so to speak). - that is highly illogical, so you assume there is a thrill in going to jail, being fined, losing everything in divorce ect? Or maybe his wife lost interest in sex, lost libido, menapause ect.....I am willing to bet Spitzer loves his wife very much, and that she lost interest in sex after having the kids, that would have to be why she hasn't dumped him, same with Clinton, hell, Hillary is probably gay.
Posted: 6/5/2009 10:04:49 AM
|Point well taken, O4. |
The problem with criminalizing consensual behavior that violates no one's rights is that those who participate have no legal recourse when a deal goes sour. Without access to legitimate law enforcement, people either continue to be victimized or start taking matters into their own hands.
The point of legalizing prostitution among consenting adults is not that exploitation or trafficking would magically vanish, but that those who are victimized would be able to call upon legal authorities to put a stop to it. And, the legal authorities would be in a position to distinguish between what is consensual and what is criminal.
Posted: 6/5/2009 2:31:33 PM
|I'm not interested in the service, but I can't see why this state shouldn't legalize prostitution. Or, certain cities or counties could make it an infraction, subject to fines only. I don't believe government has any business making crimes out of victimless agreements. For the same reasons, I'm also in favor of repealing most drug laws.|
Posted: 6/5/2009 3:07:45 PM
America will never legalize prostitution because of it's puritanical cultural background.
I don't know what you mean by "America," but there's never been any U.S. law against prostitution. The Mann Act was probably the closest thing. And prostitution's been legal for a long time in some Nevada counties. I also don't know about your claim as to Deep Throat, but state governments have the right to define and prohibit obscene speech. Congress has many members right now who are prostitutes themselves, and in a much worse way than any hooker.
I believe puritanism in the U.S. today survives mostly among so-called liberals. And it's directed not at sex, but at anything these people view as a transgression against their new sacred cows, e.g. health, the environment, and pet minorities. The most extreme ones are a homegrown Taliban, and no Salem witch hunter was ever more zealous or narrow-minded.
Posted: 6/5/2009 4:09:25 PM
|Hi Ace, Yes, good points that I can conceed to.....to a point. I don't know though if I'm conceeding to nearly 100% or rather down in the 50/50 range or what..... Possibly some research in Nevada is needed.......... |
Will be more 'thoughtful' with next post along this reasoning line...... back soon.
Posted: 6/5/2009 4:12:33 PM
|Okay Ace, I'm back from my research and reasoning 'hiatus'......I'm really quick that way. Today I can give in to 75/25 or so, but that's the best I can give today. Maybe there's more to give tomorrow......|
Posted: 6/5/2009 11:35:20 PM
Okay Ace, I'm back from my research and reasoning 'hiatus'......I'm really quick that way. Today I can give in to 75/25 or so, but that's the best I can give today. Maybe there's more to give tomorrow......
Hmmm ... So what's the sticking point for you?
Someone told me a while back that people tend to equate behavior that is disgusting with behavior that is immoral. There are some disgusting behaviors that are also immoral, but not all. Whenever I have trouble distinguishing right from wrong, I try to see if I'm using morality to justify my disgust. If so, I really don't have to because disgust is a matter of personal preference that I am perfectly entitled to. However, I am not entitled to prevent others from behaving in ways that I find merely disgusting. If they aren't violating my rights, or each other's, I have nothing to say about it.
So no, I will never stick a needle in my arm to get high. But the only thing I have to complain about when someone else does is if they put anyone else at risk while they're under the influence. And while I might recoil at the idea of paying for sexual pleasure, unless the parties leave a mess behind or pass along a disease to others, and as long as they keep it among consenting adults, it's none of my business. I don't want to know, and I can't imagine why anyone else would either.
Posted: 6/6/2009 7:21:56 AM
|Hi Ace, On the immoral vs disgusting part of the argument, I keep arguing within myself the question of: "Is it immoral to watch someone else (maybe even who is drunk) kill themselves while just standing there watching with hands in pockets?". And then, if somehow not coming to the aid of one who is in a circumstance of doing that to themselves is immoral, then the next question is to change "killing themselves" to "hurting themselves". At that point, the whole concept of "victimless crimes" is up for grabs, and it becomes a question of interpretation at where to draw the line. |
AS for the 75/25, I really do agree with your point for those that can access the law. But in our lives, have we always witnessed people able to exercise full access even in all legal conditions? How many "sweat shops" in "legal” industries (ie: at least industries/companies that look legal on the surface, but which are actually not operating in legal fashion at deeper levels) have we seen from which the "employees" did not seek legal help even though they have been treated illegally.............a particular example is how oftentimes immigrants who do not know the language, or the customs or the rules, fully end up taken advantage of. In many cases it's also the situation of becoming dependent upon a job and then not knowing, or the feeling of not knowing, how to get out of it thereafter (often times through fear of real or perceived “consequences”). These happen in many walks of life now, and certainly in jobs much less intimate and personal than the tasks of being a prostitute. Having the rights to legal access is only good if one can get to the law for any and all reasons, not just the legal ones.
Posted: 6/6/2009 11:29:05 AM
|People most often cut themselves off from legal remedies by breaking the law themselves. The millions of illegal aliens who work in the U.S. are a good example. They willingly placed themselves in a compromised position by entering this country illegally. Complaints from anyone who's done that ring pretty hollow. The law can't protect people from their own decisions.|
Visitors in foreign countries often don't know the ropes, and that makes them easy marks. But in almost all cases, no one forced them to go there. And while aliens are in this country lawfully, they enjoy all the basic legal protections Americans do. If a Japanese tourist is robbed in L.A., the police won't do anything less about it because he's an alien. Or, if they arrest him for DUI, he'll be arraigned within 48 hours just as Americans are. He'll also be provided a translator, allowed to hire a lawyer if he wants ,etc.
You mentioned the moral problem of watching a suicide. One big difference between the law in England and America, and the law in the rest of the world, is that theirs tries to make people do the right things. It's a crime not to help someone in danger, if you can. Our law, though, and England's, assumes we're moral people who will naturally do what's right. So we don't need any law to force us to--it would be beneath us. Justice Holmes once noted that a man can sit calmly on the end of a pier having a smoke, ignoring the calls of someone thrashing in the water a few yards away, and not have broken the slightest law if the victim drowns.
Posted: 6/6/2009 11:30:50 AM
a particular example is how oftentimes immigrants who do not know the language, or the customs or the rules, fully end up taken advantage of. In many cases it's also the situation of becoming dependent upon a job and then not knowing, or the feeling of not knowing, how to get out of it thereafter (often times through fear of real or perceived “consequences”). These happen in many walks of life now, and certainly in jobs much less intimate and personal than the tasks of being a prostitute. Having the rights to legal access is only good if one can get to the law for any and all reasons, not just the legal ones.
Learn English and stop with the poor woe is me, gotta look out for for the clueless nanny state mentality.
In the words of Dennis Miller.
"I don't mind helping the helpless, but I won't help the clueless."
Posted: 6/6/2009 3:57:28 PM
|^^^^^There's a certain kind of reasoning there, although I can't quite identify it! If it's a put-on, as the sign at the end suggests, it's a good one.|
But if not, it's restating the obvious to say that a society which jailed everyone in it would damage itself. And I don't know how something can be a perversion, yet be inherent in us. That seems to be a contradiction in terms, like saying abnormalities are normal.
If laws really didn't control the urges inherent in people so they could coexist in an orderly society, why have any? Most people understand that the main reason we make laws is to do just that. Laws represent a society's consensus about which of its members should be allowed to do what.
Posted: 6/6/2009 7:52:58 PM
|I've got to admit, IlGuy has some seriously good points here.|
Someone recently said here (was it you, Match?) that Puritanism is a "liberal" concept. Um...excuse me? The Puritan Movement was Reactionary and (pardon my French) Conservative in the extreme. The original Puritans fled England seeking the freedom to exercise their particular religious dogma...that being to Purify the (then) recently created Protestant Church of England. The Puritans believed the CofE did not go far enough in condemning and forcefully repressing anything that they considered "sinful"...things like having a pint in the pub once in a while, or dancing with the neighbors at a festival, or (oh, the humanity) occasionally fornicating in anything but the approved missionary position with a partner vetted and approved by that narrow religious community.
Once established in Plymouth Colony, those Puritans gleefully put in the "stocks", whipped, and beat ANY members of the colony who violated their "rules"...much like the Conservatives of today advocate.
I actually have some vested interest in Plymouth Colony and the bigotry and persecution of those who didn't meet the religious colonist's Godly standards. I've done a lot of my family's genealogy. I can trace my lineage back to four of the Mayflower passengers. One of them was the first European hanged (for murder) in New England (he was not a Puritan, by the way). A second generation female ancestor was the model for Hester in "The Scarlet Letter". She was beaten, imprisoned and lashed for bestowing her teenage sexual favors on some of the local boys (who, btw, were NOT punished for fornication!). Her family was beggared by fines imposed by the religious rulers of the colony. She eventually fled to the newly established colony of Maryland (a Catholic refuge) where the climate of free thought and action (the future model of American democracy) was truly born....not in the religiously intolerant and reactionary Plymouth Colony.
Posted: 6/6/2009 10:07:12 PM
Someone recently said here (was it you, Match?) that Puritanism is a "liberal" concept.
Oldfolkie--No, what I said was that I think Puritan morality lives on in this country mostly among some people who--ironically-- consider themselves secular and "liberal." But now, they're not concerned with sex--for them, chastity's not a virtue. Far from it. Instead, the new sacred cows are the environment, personal health, and various pet minority groups.
And the new heretics are not fornicators and adulterers, but smokers, those who eat junk food or red meat, people who defend traditional western ("dead white male") civilization and values, Catholics and others who oppose abortion, and all those who dare question the official dogma on global warming. I saw a website the other day where the local intelligentsia were seriously discussing whether people in this last group should be imprisoned or even executed.
I don't know what you mean by the term, but conservatives like me don't believe in using government to repress anyone, with the obvious exception of criminals. We have no desire to meddle in or control other Americans' private lives. We believe in individual liberties, as set out in, and guaranteed by, our Constitution. We also believe in a federal government with only the limited and enumerated powers that Constitution grants it. And I believe, for the same reasons the Framers did, that too much national government power is the enemy of our freedoms.
Conservatives also realize that so-called liberals and progressives are statists--that is, they favor a centrally controlled state with authority over most areas of our lives. And an all-inclusive government like that is, in the original, neutral sense of the word, "totalitarian." It is not compatible with our Constitution, or with American traditions. It has much more in common with what the Fascists created in early 20th Century Italy. The kind of economy we now have in the automotive sector--and may soon have in other sectors--is almost identical to the "corporatist" economy Mussolini advocated and developed.
That's why I don't like the notion of a political spectrum that ranges from left to right. It's extremely misleading. "Rightist" and "reactionary" were terms the Bolsheviks used to discredit everyone who disagreed with their views. The real range of political views about the proper nature of government lies between one extreme, at which there is no national government power--anarchy--and the opposite extreme, at which there is a national government with complete power over its citizens--dictatorship. Conservatives like me want to come as close to anarchy as possible, without having a central government too weak to maintain order and defend the nation. And we find that in the federal government of limited and enumerated powers that the Constitution provides for.
Posted: 6/6/2009 11:14:33 PM
Hi Ace, On the immoral vs disgusting part of the argument, I keep arguing within myself the question of: "Is it immoral to watch someone else (maybe even who is drunk) kill themselves while just standing there watching with hands in pockets?". And then, if somehow not coming to the aid of one who is in a circumstance of doing that to themselves is immoral, then the next question is to change "killing themselves" to "hurting themselves". At that point, the whole concept of "victimless crimes" is up for grabs, and it becomes a question of interpretation at where to draw the line.
This is a good thought experiment. I think it boils down to informed consent. If someone is killing themselves, it could be because they're exercising the ultimate freedom to dispose of the life they own as they see fit--as when a soldier takes on a suicide mission to save his buddies. We don't fault him for that. Quite the opposite!
Or, it could be a tragic case of mistaken judgment for which immediate intervention is critical to save a life.
There is one way to find out, and that is to ask the person if he or she is willing to talk it over before continuing. Therapists with suicidal clients do this all the time. They call it a "no harm contract." They ask a client to sign it and abide by it as a condition of future treatment if they believe there is a credible risk of suicidal or self-harming behavior. It is amazing how well they work when a person is really just trying to escape a painful stage of existence.
As an outsider, I don't have to draw the line. I just have to ascertain what the person's true intention is as best I can. If someone is clear that they're done with this life, who am I to argue with them?
Your point about people not knowing their rights and avenues of recourse is also well taken. That's why we have a public school system--to hopefully prepare children for the responsibilities of citizenship when they reach adulthood.
It's bad enough when people don't know. But when we specifically rule out legal recourse for a class of workers who provide a service that is clearly and consistently in demand by creating a black market for that service, we aren't really helping anyone, are we? All we are doing is pretending to live in a world that is much cleaner, purer, and tidier than it actually is. Heaven is for the _next_ life. Here in the real world among mere mortals like us, some people enjoy what others find disgusting.
Posted: 6/6/2009 11:17:43 PM
Conservatives also realize that so-called liberals and progressives are statists--that is, they favor a centrally controlled state with authority over most areas of our lives.
Matchlight, I believe that this overstates the liberal position. Yes, there are some on the progressive extreme who are socialists. However, most liberals want a government that has enough clout to keep the economic power of large corporations in check.
Posted: 6/7/2009 12:18:52 AM
Label yourself a Libertarian and people will not be so quick to lash out at you.
If I wanted your advice, I'd have asked for it. I don't care a pinch of owl dung whether people who can barely think their way out of bed like the way I describe my political philosophy. And I have the greatest respect for former Vice-President Cheney.
Posted: 6/7/2009 1:29:06 AM
I believe that this overstates the liberal position.
Maybe it does, depending on who you consider a "liberal." I don't think for a moment it overstates the position of the current President. It's no coincidence that his pal Ayers and his longtime preacher Wright openly hate their own country; that his pal Rashid Khalidi and his own wife tolerate it only grudgingly; or that his guiding light Alinsky was a communist dedicated to undermining its original principles.
I also doubt it was coincidence that Mr. Obama chose not to wear a flag pin last year, or that he bows and apologizes to foreign rulers (however vile, or hostile to us they are) for supposed U.S. transgressions. His fawning overtures to Muslims, together with his callous disrespect for Israel, suggests he--like Rev. Wright and his associate Louis Farrakhan--deeply dislikes and resents Jews.
In view of all that, I doubt that in his heart, Mr. Obama much likes the country he's sworn to defend. And if he gets Ms. Sotomayor on the Court, we can expect it will even more often misconstrue the Constitution to substitute the rule of man for the rule of law. Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian by birth and the founder of the "Chicago school" of economics, used Nazi Germany as his example. He warned that to make that substitution was to move, as it had, down "the road to serfdom."
It's also disturbing that this President is a habitual liar. His speech in Cairo, for example, was riddled with both misleading statements and outright lies. There were so many it would take more time and space than I have at the moment to address them. But I'll be glad to, if anyone doubts what I'm saying. And many of the President's other statements have been either highly misleading or outright false.
So, when I hear him piously talk of the Constitution and the rule of law, I doubt he means any of what he says. I believe he and his millions of adoring followers loathe almost everything about America, and that they want to reshape it according to their own vision of utopia. I also believe that at bottom, he and many of them are fascists, with the same zeal to create a utopian State, the same fascination with change for its own sake, and the same impatience with, or even contempt for, democracy, as the European fascists of the early 1900's. I doubt if more than a few of them realize that about themselves. And fewer yet want to.
Posted: 6/7/2009 1:42:40 AM
Then you have problems, sir.
That's about what I expected. I'll leave you to the other posters here. I have nothing more to say.
7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)