No, I'm not using any imagery. I hope you read the post that I was replying to.

I dont think prostitution is a private, intimate act. Having sex is. When you base having sex on terms of transactions its not a private intimate act anymore, its a business transaction- and you can respect and not respect a person on what they do socially.

I dont agree with you on "All women deserve some respect"- not every human being deserves respect just for being alive. If a person was to be respected, inspite of their "personal acts", we would go out and start respecting murderers and rapists and what not, when its "outside the act"- but we dont.

I am also not saying that sexual identity is of ultimate worth- sexual identity is onto oneself- having sex or earning money is not illegal- but making it a profession is totally unethical. Then again, its my opinion and ethics itself is a debateable concept.

When my wife and I were looking to get married four years ago, we wanted a ceremony that reflect us. Since neither of us were religious, we thought it would be disrespectful to have it in a church. We took a plane to Vegas and got married! No, she wasn't pregnant, and no, it wasn't a shotgun wedding, and no, we didn't go through one of those drive through wedding things. We picked out a perfect place and had the ceremony as we liked. While walking the strip, scantily clad women would attempt to hand me their cards. It was obvious that they weren't insurance representatives, that was for sure! I believe that it should be legal. In doing so, perhaps there could be a bureau that would help those in prostitution to be able to leave the profession by offering counseling services, seminars on stds, as well as drug help if they want. The state of Nevada hasn't fallen off the map with prostitution being legal. I don't see how it would be worse for the rest of the forty-nine states.

De-legitimize the Ten Commandments in public places but legitimize whores who solicit in public places?

Adultery is okay, moralizing isn't. No prayer in schools but plenty of video cameras.
Mommy, when I grow up I want to be a hooker...

We are setting ourselves up for a lot of grief as it is, with standards of conduct not being taught, and only followed when our actions might be recorded on videotape.

I don't want this for our country.

Paladin, I don't see the comparison you're trying to make. Not everyone believes the ten commandments are the universal standard for good morals.

Soliciting is legal where it is legal, and illegal where it is illegal. What difference does it make what they're soliciting?

I don't believe adultery is okay, but adultery is a very different thing than prostitution. Adultery, I believe, is having sex with someone else while you're married. That is a betrayal. Prostitution isn't, as long as the johns or prostitutes aren't married. How is legalizing prostitution making adultery "okay"?

And I simply don't see the problem in believing that someone else's morals making the laws for me and everyone else is wrong.

Prayer in school is a completely different topic, and again I fail to see how it relates to video cameras - to help keep students safe - and then, I fail to see how the faulty analogy has anything at all to do with legalizing prostitution.
If you're trying to show how backwards society's "morals" are, you didn't do a very good job.

If my daughter told me that when she grew up, she'd want to be a hooker, I would point out that you can only be a hooker for until you get/look a certain age, and she'd need to have other skills to sustain her after that. There are risks involved in many professions. Construction workers, police officers, etc. So just because there's risks involved doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. Of course, I'm assuming that prostitution would be legal at the time that she asked me. It is a profession like anything else. You start out entry level, and if you're good you could be making thousands a night. Don't parents want their children to be successful?

I really don't understand the "decriminalize but don't make it legal" line. If you make something not criminal, that means that there is no punishment for doing it. And if there's no punishment for it, wouldn't it be legal? Seeing as how society punishes people for doing illegal things, and doesn't for doing legal ones? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The problem is society's attitude. If prostitution were legalized, down the road you wouldn't have to worry about hookers being on the street because no one would give them a second glance. A kid walking on his way to school would see a hooker and give her as much thought as the guy working on the telephone pole across the street. The NIMBY fallout is only because of the morals parents install in their children, and then those children pass down to their own children, and so on. If society was used to prostitutes because they became legal, the NIMBY argument would become moot.

I think the best argument for the legalization of prostitution so far has been the fact that it isn't illegal to have sex with many people, so logically there's no reason why it should be illegal to be paid to have sex with many people. For free, it's okay, but if she makes money off of it, she's a criminal?

Finally bucket, i get to responding to this. It usually takes me a while, since it's usually like writing an essay, lol.

I keep responding to the same thing over, and over and over, and in each post you say that I have not responded to it.



So now I will make it more conspicuous: ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION...NOW

Saying that freedom to choose takes away choice is ludicrous. You are saying that by offering women the easy money that is prostitution, you take away their freedom of choice. I cannot understand that. Freedom of choice is just that. Saying "do what you want" is not legislated morality. I also think that perception is not the government's responsibility. Plus, the idea of "perception of women in society" is flawed to begin with. It's a myth. I perceive my mother as my mother, my wife as my wife, my friends as my friends, and Aileen Wuornos as a serial killer. End of story. How do you perceive men in society?



Society doesn't treat women like anything, people do. The only thing society can do is give someone equal rights. Are you saying that me and some guy with spaghetti stains on his shirt beating his wife are somehow "on the same side" due to our anatomy? Group identity is preposterous, especially when it comes to gender. I can barely find any white, Russian immigrant males in their 20s that I identify with, yet somehow I am supposed identify with males in general.




It doesn't guarantee it. But speaking of guarantees, I can guarantee you that while this option is nonexistent 100% of said exchanges will take place on the black market with no regulation. And for the last time, (I have said this before) making brothels adhere to safe business practices is NOT legislating morality. A brothel is a for-profit business, correct? Why should it not adhere safe business practice guidelines. A customer should be able to go to a brothel and be reasonably certain he is engaging in a safe experience.



Of course laws, etc. should enacted for the good of society. But not every law that might be good for society should exist in a free society. And sex is not only a for-profit thing, only in the context of prostitution. If I ever said otherwise, quote me.



That was not a sexist remark. I never said " all women" or "all men". What I am saying is that our society is that of troglodytes when it comes to our attitudes towards sex. We seem to be unable to get the Purtian boot off of our throat.



This was exactly my point in regards to that statement. Society tells us that any woman in that situation that would say "sure, let's go" is a slut. Society also tells us that any man that approaches a woman like that is a sexist pig who views all women as only good for one thing. It's ridiculous. The flipside of women being oppressed through history is that men are often penalized for things that are just natural, i.e. attraction, and expression thereof. But we are getting off topic here. My point was that in our society, there is so much crap attached to sex that at times a man just wants to be able to say to a woman "Let's go have sex just for the fun of it, and no strings attached." What is stupid is that as much as this is what actually winds up happening, many men are still stuck in the role of "playing the game", and many women are still stuck in a role of "looking pretty, making sure he buys me stuff and not giving it up too fast". Once again, I am not saying EVERYONE, so don't accuse me of it. If picking up sex was done with the same mindset as going to a basketball court and picking up a game, I doubt prostitution would be a profitable business.

And if you want to keep exploring the rights and wrongs of cat meat vs. beef, start a thread. I won't spend any time on it here.

So now prostitutes are going to ask johns if they're married before they take their money and service them? So it's okay to make money while you're participating in that man's infidelity? Sheesh.



It DOES make a difference what is being solicited.

Umm, let's see--how about the sale of Saturday Night Specials (illegal firearms)? After all, we do have the right to bear arms, right? Without value judgments and the resultant legislation, those would be readily available to whoever wanted to buy them. Or how about selling bombs to private citizens? Maybe someone could try to put it under "provide for the common defense," but I am certain that there are many who would argue that it does not square with the spirit of the document.

And how about heroin and crack cocaine? After all, it's the pursuit of happiness to some folks! Why, that's where prostitution comes in, doesn't it? Of course, that's not in the Constitution. What part of the Constitution would be cited to allow prostitution to be legal? It's securing the blessings of liberty, not securing the right to take liberties with "ourselves and our posterity" in the Preamble.

"Promote the general welfare" would not seem to cover it either, as long as it is demonstrated that sexually transmitted diseases do not contribute to our welfare. On the contrary, they endanger the members of our society.

What do the Ten Commandments, no prayer in schools and videotapes in schools have to do with prostitution and the desire of some to legalize it?

A parent fails to instill the basic concept of right and wrong in a child. The child goes to school where no particular value system is instructed or promoted. The child does not have someone to explain why right is right and wrong is wrong, so the child determines that there really isn't a right and wrong, just things that you don't want to get caught doing (like cheating), that it's not so bad to do as long as nobody finds out. Lying seems to work for those who do it successfully; telling the truth, especially when you end up with some punishment if you do, seems stupid.
Besides, there are cameras there to record your movements. Violation of the law is punished, but there are no guiding principles presented in school to provide the reason for some behaviors being a violation of the law while others are not. But don't plead guilty or nolo contendre if you're arrested and there's even videotape evidence against you until you find out if your court-appointed attorney can get the evidence suppressed or excluded. No consequences in many cases, and no reason to change the illegal behavior. And your "good name," what's that worth anyway?



Then why not accept community standards as they are?



If prostitution "is a profession like anything else," why would she "need to have other skills to sustain her after that?" Even a toothless hag can be a hooker.



At fellatio? At the missionary position, or many of the other positions that I will not mention here? Ewwww! Maybe for her lucky husband, but not for a living.

My daughter can aim much higher than that. Why would any parent want their child to settle for dangerous situations often involving people you wouldn't want her to bring home for you to meet?



Prostitution does nothing to promote stable, monogamous relationships, which are conducive to raising children. Prostitution certainly does not encourage fidelity, and the people who frequent prostitutes, in many cases, wouldn't be caught dead in other circumstances with those prostitutes. The marriage vows include "forsaking all others," and this is routinely disregarded by the prostitute's customers. People with diseases can find prostitutes who do not take precautions against contracting the diseases, in order to make more money.

Prostitution in this society is a profession of sorts, but it is certainly not honorable, and it does not encourage honorable behavior. If a woman wants to act like an animal in heat, she can do it on her own time. But for now she'd better not quit her day job if she doesn't want to run afoul of the law.

If my daughter told me that when she grew up, she'd want to be a hooker, I would point out that in a lifetime, I have only met one girl who ever told me that. Even for her, it was a second choice career decision; if she couldn't be a Playboy centerfold. It led to a very long argument with the minister, and got us off topic in Sunday School one day... ...four decades ago! I understand that he spoke with her parents later that day. I never heard her broach the topic again.


I have heard of a few women who became "successful" in this field, by going on to become madams or writing books about the lifestyle. Legalizing it would, I suspect, cause the price to drop. Laws of supply and demand would bring a few "part-timers" into the "profession," and likely not increase the demand for services.

I would point out to my daughter that there are many professions where she can become a success without resorting to something like prostitution! I would feel that I was a failure as a parent if my daughter told me that when she grew up, she'd want to be a hooker.

I think that the ultimate argument that the for-prostitution side is using is that "It's not the government's job to govern morality."

Unfortunately, governing morality is exactly what the government ends up doing. Adultery? Illegal. Gambling? except in a few circumstances, illegal. Drinking under 21? Illegal. Smoking under 18? Illegal. Mind-altering drugs? Illegal. Murder? Illegal (heck, if I don't believe that killing someone is wrong and you do, what right do you have to force your morals upon me?).

Why are these illegal? Well ladies and gentlemen, it's either because they've been found to be detrimental to a civilized society, or it's because of some other highly educated-sounding reason (among some other valid reasons) that boils down to the fact that the government does govern morality.

You want prostitution to be legal? Fine, but first, tell the government that they should allow me to settle my differences in a duel to the finish (heck, that's how we could settle this prostitution argument, as long as I get to choose the weapon ). And second, as a final touch, how about we repeal slavery? Just because you think that all men are created (or evolved) equally doesn't mean that you have the right to tell me that I should think that way. That way we could just cut out the middle man & enslave the entire female sex! Boy would that be convenient....

Y'know, just because some people can't get it any other way...

I was not aware of this. I have known several people who have cheated on their spouse (and have heard of many others) but have never heard of someone being arrested or fined. Is it actually illegal? As far as I know, it's grounds for divorce and during civil trials you can only get monetary compensation from an unfaithful spouse if you can argue it has "injured" you. That is, the adultery itself is not enough. If this is not the case, I would certainly argue that the government should not have made it illegal.


Children are not considered to have the same rights as adults do. Making this relevant would require a tangential debate.


Many would argue that they shouldn't be. However, you do have a point. The government considers drugs to be indirectly dangerous to those not even using them, which is why it has banned most of the fun ones. That is, I can still legally harm myself in very obvious ways, like cutting off my arm, because it's not seen as a threat to others. I think the best use of this particular example would be to find a reason why prostitution indirectly hurts others and argue it should be illegal on the same grounds as drugs.


Murdering someone infringes the rights of another person. People may consider murder amoral, maybe even for this very reason, but that's not why it's illegal.


It's not about people forcing their morals on you. It's about you infringing the rights of others. Prostitution, when it's consensual, does not infringe on the rights of anyone.

In a way, the ideal of protecting the rights of people is a system of morality. I believe when people say that government should not govern morality, they mean that government should not ban activities based on moral arguments except for the argument that claims the government should protect our rights.

Gambling (but only in certain cases)?

Public Intoxication?

Indecent Exposure? (How does the govornment decide what's indecent?)

Permitting smoking in a privately owned restaurant? (what about the rights of the restaurant owners?)

Polygamy?

Bigamy?

Fornication (a misdemeanor in some states, a term that means sexual relations between an unmarried couple)?

and how does the govornment decide when a child becomes an adult? Last I heard the age of consent (in my state) is 16, but I can't smoke untill I'm 18 (when I'm considered a legal adult, with full rights to vote & join the military) and I can't drink untill I'm 21.


All of these (including adultery) sound like the govorning of morality to me, and contrary to most people's opinion on this board (according to the poll) it's what our govornment does.

As I said on the illegal drug issue, you do have a point, and I think it is doubly true with the gambling case. The government does regulate morality. The people who claim that government shouldn't are saying just that; that the government shouldn't. If they didn't believe the state was already governing morality, why would they use the "we shouldn't govern morality" argument in the first place?

The point I was making was in regards to your previous argument; that saying "the state shouldn't govern morality" is the same as saying murder and everything else should be legal. I thought that particular argument was erroneous, and still do. My post may have been confusing because I was trying to provide example arguments for why such activities should be illegal without relying on moral judgements. However, I became too caught up with saying why those laws didn't rely on moral arguments instead of why they didn't necessarily need to, and thus shifted the debate. Sorry.

Sure, a child can get used to seeing a prostitute on the corner. In fact, children DO get used to seeing prostitutes on street corners. They get used to watching people smoke crack, get beaten with a bat, public urination, pretty much anything.....Just ask anyone growing up in a housing project.

The point is, that brings a seedy, criminal element to the community, just as opening a gambling casino or a tatoo parlor next door would. It's nearly impossible to find a good school or safe neighborhood in Las Vegas for that exact reason. I live in an area of extreme zoning and gated communities about 15 minutes from the strip, which is the only reason I am able to take my children out for a walk without having to worry about being mugged, molested, or worse.

What exactly is legalization , standards, safe business guidelines and all of these many other concepts you keep talking about? Aren't they all rules? Rules set and decided upon by the gov and in re: to this issue they would be rules decided on by the government on how sex should be performed. I honestly have no idea how you believe this will not legislate morality and will not hinder the freedom of choice because it will not ever be just a "do what you want" thing because when we allow anything to enter in the gov realm and relinquish our control.. whether we do so with prohibiting by law or regulating by law..we no longer do what we want but rather what we are told, regulated, guided, and instructed to do.
You want women sold like hamburgers then you must accept the fact that women will be regulated, approved, inspected, instructed and restricted by the laws of your gov. Much like hamburgers only certain types of women will be considered safe for human consumption, much like a hamburger they gov will tell you at what temp you must eat your women (heh) and much like a hamburger those who sell them or women will have to have licenses, be inspected, approved for quality and made to uphold gov mandated standards. Why do we need our gov to get involved in this business? Again I will ask you why can we not leave somethings as a private exchange? Why must everything be in the realm and control of the gov?

The reason I keep asking you the same question over and over is you have not explained how allowing the gov to regulate set standards and safety guidelines for how two people exchange sexual favors will not allow for morality (which are just standards!) to be decided by the gov on this issue. You have not addressed this at all.


I think if you look around the world you will see that each and every society does treat issues, genders, situations etc differently. One of the bindings of our society is our collective moralism. It DOES exist and for the most part I don't feel it is a bad thing. You and your feelings about women greatly differ from those of another man from KSA...why? Did you each reach these conclusions on women on your own? No I doubt that...you and a man from KSA differ on how you treat women in accordance to what is the perceived image of women in your own society and what is the accepted and moral views on women.
That is why what we do in our society as a whole..which mostly is our gov...is so important. These actions are not merely unchanging, inaudible vibrations so be sent out to space. They resonate within our society and alter how we interact with each other and how we ultimately perceive ourselves and our country as a whole.
The man beating his wife is not one you are suppose to side with because our society has collectively decided that the beating of women is immoral. He is not acting in accordance to the perceived values and behaviors of a man in our society. This is not the case in all societies of our world....some cultures do not feel it is wrong for a man to abuse a women in such a way. Again do you think in these cultures men and women all independently feel this way? Or do you think maybe society's perceptions and collective moralism might be involved?



How are safe business practices and guidelines not legislated morality...you say they are not but how? I gave the catburger example but you have claimed it is irrelevant...so please do explain how this concept of yours all works?

If a grown man wants to indulge in sex with a stranger whether it be in a brothel or their own private home then let him take on his own personal responsibility for his safety...why do I have to be involved in ensuring he is safe at all times even when he is running about sticking his penis in things? Honestly how much more of a nanny gov can we ask for?


I dunno seemed fairly sexist to me to claim that the reason that prostitution is a very gender specific occurence in our society was because women aren't easy and men wish they were.
Also you are not the first in here to claim that our ideas on prostitution in society all stem from our puritanical views on sex in this country. Why does everyone here feel Americans are so prudish? Divided ..yes..but generally as a whole prudish...no. I read a book ( i think it was Me Talk Pretty by sedaris?) and he says in it everyone in Europe thinks Americans are so prudish when it comes to sex (and it is true they all do) and yet he knows so many Americans that have been involved in group sex and other very non-prudish behaviors and it is so true.

Besides I have no idea how this relates to the topic at hand because I honestly do not feel that prostitution is linked to sexual liberation...quite the opposite.



Wait wait wait..you are confusing me here....Now your on about all the things society says and perceives and tells us..Don't you remember your earlier comments:

So which is it..is society telling us things through it's perceptions or are we each independently reacting, perceiving and judging one another with no reference to society's expectations, guidelines, standards or collective moralism?





Oh You must not have a child then. I can't imagine if you did that your only concern for your child becoming a prostitute would be career longevity. I don't care how liberal you claim to be. Would you also warn her to become a gymnast or a professional tennis player with the same concern for her future as you would for her hopes of prostitution? Just because it becomes legal does not mean it becomes a desirable profession...quite the opposite and one of the main contentions of my argument. As I stated earlier in this debate go look at Holland or Nevada..is it considered a normal profession as any other and one that mummy's would approve of? In Holland most of the prostitutes are imported women of very low education socio-economic standing because it is not a very desired profession for women and I doubt any Dutch mums are saying oh lovely you want to be a prostitute my Lieveling..just remember your success won't last forever!




Well it makes sense to some of us...some of us don't think a women should be criminalized for selling her body..it is her body let her do what she wants with it and allow her the right to dictate the circumstances in which she does it. Legalizing something means to bring it into the gov realm and allow our gov to mandate, regulate and basically have control on how we have sex with one another. Oh you say but that is just for those who want to have it for money...well what about those who barter for it? If this is just yet another business transaction or profession like any other we will have to treat it as such and start having our gov dictating what is bartering for sex and to be considered essentially a "cash" exchange for sex? How far will the idea of what is prostitution go?



Mrs Pigpen covered this well...but I wanted to ask..is that what you want for your daughters, mothers and sisters? You want them to have to see women (and it will be mostly women) out in the streets prostituting themselves ? You want this to become an accepted image of a woman? And how do you think this acceptance will effect society? And do you think that only certain kinds of women will in fact be the prostitutes and will in fact carry a stigmatisation because of it?

[quote]So now prostitutes are going to ask johns if they're married before they take their money and service them?  So it's okay to make money while you're participating in that man's infidelity? Sheesh. [/quote]

Paladin, please quote me where I said it was okay to make money while you were participating in that man's infidelity. I explicitly stated that if a john or prostitute were married, I would most definitely not condone that person engaging in prostitution because that's adultery and betrayal of marriage vows, IMO.

[quote]It DOES make a difference what is being solicited.

Umm, let's see--how about the sale of Saturday Night Specials (illegal firearms)? After all, we do have the right to bear arms, right? Without value judgments and the resultant legislation, those would be readily available to whoever wanted to buy them. Or how about selling bombs to private citizens? Maybe someone could try to put it under "provide for the common defense," but I am certain that there are many who would argue that it does not square with the spirit of the document.[/quote]

You stated yourself that SNSs are illegal, so the point is moot. Of course people shouldn't solicit illegal things. Your statement was this: "De-legitimize the Ten Commandments in public places but legitimize whores who solicit in public places?" You were making it sound like prostitutes who solicit in public places is such a horrendous thing. If soliciting is allowed, then prostitutes soliciting should be allowed (I'm talking about places where prostitution is legal, of course).

[quote]And how about heroin and crack cocaine? After all, it's the pursuit of happiness to some folks! Why, that's where prostitution comes in, doesn't it? Of course, that's not in the Constitution. What part of the Constitution would be cited to allow prostitution to be legal? It's securing the blessings of liberty, not securing the right to take liberties with "ourselves and our posterity" in the Preamble.[/quote]
I could very well turn that question right back on you and say "what part of the Constitution could be cited to forbid legalizing prostitution? Yes, it is the pursuit of happiness. Which, unlike drugs, does no harm to oneself or others. No more than any other profession, at least.
Comparing drugs, which alter your body and it's responses and in many cases cause people to do many destructive things to society like murdering and stealing, to a woman who has sex with a man for money is probably one of the most ridiculous analogies I've ever heard. When having sex with someone - for money, even - causes people to go on violent rampages, check back with me.

[quote]"Promote the general welfare" would not seem to cover it either, as long as it is demonstrated that sexually transmitted diseases do not contribute to our welfare. On the contrary, they endanger the members of our society.[/quote]

Sexually transmitted diseases happen when people have sex, not just when people have sex for money. Again, an absurd argument for keeping prostitution illegal. How's about making it illegal to have sex with more than one person, if that's your reasoning?

[quote]What do the Ten Commandments, no prayer in schools and videotapes in schools have to do with prostitution and the desire of some to legalize it?

A parent fails to instill the basic concept of right and wrong in a child. The child goes to school where no particular value system is instructed or promoted. The child does not have someone to explain why right is right and wrong is wrong, so the child determines that there really isn't a right and wrong, just things that you don't want to get caught doing (like cheating), that it's not so bad to do as long as nobody finds out. Lying seems to work for those who do it successfully; telling the truth, especially when you end up with some punishment if you do, seems stupid.
Besides, there are cameras there to record your movements. Violation of the law is punished, but there are no guiding principles presented in school to provide the reason for some behaviors being a violation of the law while others are not. But don't plead guilty or nolo contendre if you're arrested and there's even videotape evidence against you until you find out if your court-appointed attorney can get the evidence suppressed or excluded. No consequences in many cases, and no reason to change the illegal behavior. And your "good name," what's that worth anyway?[/quote]

You have failed in every possible way to explain to me how any of that relates to plastering religious dogma in public places, like oh, say, schools, will "stop" prostitution and instill "good" morals. As long as the john and prostitute aren't married to anyone, it seems like there's no commandment against having sex for money in there anyway
And you forgot some of the commandments, tsk tsk. Like having no other god before the christian god, and keeping the christian day of worship holy. Oh yeah, and taking the christian god's name in vain. Excellent morals, I really want my children to fear/obey something that doesn't exist...

[quote][quote]And I simply don't see the problem in believing that someone else's morals making the laws for me and everyone else is wrong. [/quote]

Then why not accept community standards as they are?[/quote]

What? Because I don't agree with them. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What I said is that I see nothing wrong in believing that moral laws are wrong. Moral laws meaning when someone else's morals dictate what I can and cannot do. I don't agree with the community standards because they are based on religion.

[quote][quote]If my daughter told me that when she grew up, she'd want to be a hooker, I would point out that you can only be a hooker for until you get/look a certain age, and she'd need to have other skills to sustain her after that. There are risks involved in many professions. Construction workers, police officers, etc. So just because there's risks involved doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. Of course, I'm assuming that prostitution would be legal at the time that she asked me. It is a profession like anything else. You start out entry level, and if you're good you could be making thousands a night. Don't parents want their children to be successful?[/quote]

If prostitution "is a profession like anything else," why would she "need to have other skills to sustain her after that?" Even a toothless hag can be a hooker. [/quote]

She would need other skills because there are prime years for being a prostitute. Few men will pay for sex with an overweight, middle-aged, graying woman. It's the same concept as in modeling.

[quote][quote]Don't parents want their children to be successful?[/quote]

At fellatio? At the missionary position, or many of the other positions that I will not mention here? Ewwww! Maybe for her lucky husband, but not for a living.

My daughter can aim much higher than that. Why would any parent want their child to settle for dangerous situations often involving people you wouldn't want her to bring home for you to meet?[/quote]

If that's what she's good at, so be it. She should be proud. If you're grossed out by natural bodily functions like sex, that's really your problem.
Your daughter can "aim much higher than that" eh? Tell me, paladin... if you weren't getting paid for your job, would you still be working there? Nearly everyone who works is a whore. They do whatever it is that they're doing for money. You think men who pick up my trash every Friday do it because they love doing it? No, they do it for the money. Even someone who is lucky enough to land a job they love is not going to keep doing it if they stop getting paid. Your daughter will work, and she will be a whore in her own way. She will be doing a service for money. Your problem is that a prostitute's services involve sex, and that's "icky," making me wonder exactly how she came to be in the first place...

[quote][quote]I think the best argument for the legalization of prostitution so far has been the fact that it isn't illegal to have sex with many people, so logically there's no reason why it should be illegal to be paid to have sex with many people. For free, it's okay, but if she makes money off of it, she's a criminal?[/quote]

Prostitution does nothing to promote stable, monogamous relationships, which are conducive to raising children. Prostitution certainly does not encourage fidelity, and the people who frequent prostitutes, in many cases, wouldn't be caught dead in other circumstances with those prostitutes. The marriage vows include "forsaking all others," and this is routinely disregarded by the prostitute's customers. People with diseases can find prostitutes who do not take precautions against contracting the diseases, in order to make more money.[/quote]

I didn't know something had to promote a stable, monogamous relationship, or fidelity, or marriage vows to be legal. Learn something new every day I guess. So what if marriage vows are disregarded by the prostitute's customers? Is that the prostitute's fault that the man is too weak to control his own behavior and impulses? Anyhow, where there is a demand, there will be a supply. People with diseases can also have sex with people for free. Paladin, STDs make no distinction whether the sex they were transferred by was free or paid for. A girl who sleeps around for free can expose herself to just as much risk as a prostitute. If your concern is STD, then outlaw sleeping with more than one person, not just prostitution. If not, well then it makes no sense that sleeping around for free should be legal, but if the woman receives money for it, all of a sudden it's not.

[quote]Prostitution in this society is a profession of sorts, but it is certainly not honorable, and it does not encourage honorable behavior. If a woman wants to act like an animal in heat, she can do it on her own time. But for now she'd better not quit her day job if she doesn't want to run afoul of the law.[/quote]

Again, those are your opinions which really matter nothing to me because I have my own. I believe it's just as honorable as any other "service" that people pay for. Prostitutes are in it for the money, not because they love sleeping around. What "animal in heat" are you talking about? They perform the service and they get the hell out of there. The more time they spend pussyfooting around is time that could be spent making more money.


[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,Dec 15 2003, 10:01 AM] [quote=SuzySteamboat,Dec 14 2003, 08:04 PM]The problem is society's attitude. If prostitution were legalized, down the road you wouldn't have to worry about hookers being on the street because no one would give them a second glance. A kid walking on his way to school would see a hooker and give her as much thought as the guy working on the telephone pole across the street. The NIMBY fallout is only because of the morals parents install in their children, and then those children pass down to their own children, and so on. If society was used to prostitutes because they became legal, the NIMBY argument would become moot.
[/quote]
Sure, a child can get used to seeing a prostitute on the corner. In fact, children DO get used to seeing prostitutes on street corners. They get used to watching people smoke crack, get beaten with a bat, public urination, pretty much anything.....Just ask anyone growing up in a housing project.

The point is, that brings a seedy, criminal element to the community, just as opening a gambling casino or a tatoo parlor next door would. It's nearly impossible to find a good school or safe neighborhood in Las Vegas for that exact reason. I live in an area of extreme zoning and gated communities about 15 minutes from the strip, which is the only reason I am able to take my children out for a walk without having to worry about being mugged, molested, or worse. [/quote]
Mrs. Pigpen, "seedy" is your opinion. And my entire hypothesis was just that - hypothetical, where prostitution wouldn't be illegal, so it wouldn't be criminal.

there were however other points brought up about the situations in Nevada and Holland however where they are not legal, and yet it is still not a valuable profession... I don't think that the "seediness" will ever truely get out of that profession, sorry.

Prostitution is legal in Nevada, and there is a seedy element to a hooker on a street corner here. Strip clubs also have a seedy element to them, and are legal...or is that my opinion too? Red light districts, even when legal, are reserved to certain areas of the community because they bring crime and decadence to that area.

Edited to add: I also wouldn't want a person to have the liberty of sticking a heroin needle between his toes on my street corner....even if it were legal. I don't want a person to defecate in a pot, publicly, on my street corner, and defecation is legal.

SuzySteamboat:

I'm staying at home raising my daughter for NO PAY. Any criticism of that?



You said you are against adultery--what would it mean to you then?
Why legalize prostitution if it contributes to something you believe is wrong? Unless you believe that the prostitute should be held totally and irrevocably blameless for her participation in acts that contribute to loss of trust, divorce, crimes of passion.

I think your attitudes are, politely put, quite uncommon and as such probably hold no water with legislators. An AD poll is a far cry from getting a law passed or changed. I suggest you move to Nevada around the Mustang Ranch if you are so hell-bent on advancing/protecting the rights of women who choose to spread their legs to make their money. In many places, though, it is not the woman's choice to make a living this way; it is forced upon her after she gets the wrong kind of "boyfriend."

Furthermore, it's the cavalier disregard of moral principles such as the Ten Commandments (and I see you are familiar with them) that causes attitudes like yours, which you are certainly entitled to, but which represent the views of a minority. Community standards are the things upon which the laws are written and voted upon. So lobby for the whores, if you'd like, but you'll not convince me.

Isn't it funny how other illegal activities are so often linked to people who associate with prostitutes, like selling illegal guns and the use of harmful, illegal drugs? No coincidence, I'd say (of course you'll dismiss that out of hand, too). Such upright citizens, I am sure, contact their Congresspeople and vote in regular elections, or do they? If they don't give a rip about their legal status (and I am including the prostitutes here), why should the rest of us?

I would submit that your atheism and lack of regard for traditionally observed moral tenets are not my problem, either. You may think your position is perfectly tenable; well, guess what? I think mine is, too. So I guess it's a stalemate, except for one thing:

I represent the values of a greater number of people than you do, thankfully. Perhaps the minority, if it is so unhappy with the situation and yet does not want to become active in changing these laws, should move to the Netherlands where things must be so much more idyllic considering that licentious behavior is tolerated and even accepted by some. (Interesting coincidence that the Netherlands is known for its heroin addicts as well. Apparently that country has little compunction to protect its citizens and its visitors from themselves, so they are free to destroy their lives while depending upon the government for fresh needles and health care.)

Yes. My faith discourages people from having sex outside of marriage. They should save themselves for a person they got to know first and were sure would make a wonderful lifelong companion. But I am realistic about this. Yes, STDs are spred without whores, but you can darn well be certain that there would indeed be fewer cases if whores weren't conducting their business and more men "talked to the hand" more often when they felt a need.

I am not here to change the behavior of a bunch of people, but I do consider myself responsible for helping to maintain some semblance of morality and personal responsibility in the society in which my daughter must be raised. What people do is their business, as long as it is within the bounds of the law.

Sex is a beautiful thing when it is an expression of mutual love, not merely self-gratification, incidentally in the presence of someone else. This I know, and I resent the suggestion that I find sexuality somehow abhorrent. And this is what I want my daughter to know: sex is supposed to be special and reserved for the one you truly love.

There is more shame and degradation when a woman knows that she is just the evening's entertainment. As far as prostitution being a glamorous profession employing women who look like models, I am sure that a number of male posters here would assure you that if they could get sex for $20 from an ugly prostitute, they would pay the money and put a bag over her head. And even an obese woman has ways of gratifying a man if that's what he wants. Heck, they're a "specialty" group! What a privilege! And then there were the toothless old women in Vietnam that veterans talked about visiting when they felt the need! How glamorous! Yeah, just like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, right?

If you think that any given career is akin to whoring, then I think you have a real problem.

So the views of the majority should override the rights of minorities? Having a minority view does not imply that it is wrong, nor does it imply that it should not be respected. I think it is very dangerous to argue that minority rights should not be protected and that they should leave the country because they disagree with you. You have argued that prostitutes should get the laws changed, but have also argued that the laws shouldn't be changed. Not that this is a trivial task, anyway, but you could certainly argue that they have already tried and even succeeded in a few places. What makes all this even more disconcerting is that you have even brought religion into it and claimed that his minority "atheist" views are his own problem as well. I think you're arguing for totalitarianism.

So if the community decides that they don't like the phrase "praise Cthulhu," they'll pass a law outlawing it? While I'm sure such instances exist, I think most people consider this unconstitutional. Laws are also supposed to protect the rights of people, not just follow community standards.

I think one of the arguments for legalizing prostitution is to end these associations. Since prostitution is outlawed, only outlaws are prostitutes? Still, this is an arguable stance and I think it's certainly a much better approach than arguing that the majority can do whatever it wants.


I think that porn stars have careers that are akin to whoring. It's essentially accepting money to have sex.

Actually, speaking of porn stars, apparently it's perfectly legal to pay two people to have sex with one another as long as you aren't having sex with them. Therefore, I propose a sex co-op, whereby participants will donate a large sum of money in order to pay two people to have sex. In return, someone else will pay him to have sex with another person. For example, I put $401 into the coop. In return, when I meet a prostitute, I can have the coop wire her $400 and wire me $1 to pay us to have sex. Those against prostitution can pretend it's still illegal, while everyone else can have sex with prostitutes all they want (must be 18 to participate).

Yes, the will of the majority does, and in many cases should, override the rights of minorities, if they don't represent what this society values, or if they are not willing to abide by the law. (If I am a totalitarian, then I'm a Christian totalitarian. Call me what you will; it does not make me what you call me. Sticks and stones. Actually, I would have more of a friendly socialist bent, as long as I can practice my faith and others can practice theirs in freedom. But that is not the subject of this thread. I am for freedom--but freedom within the ESTABLISHED law.)

However, I do not consider the outcry for validation of a reprobate segment of society a valid "minority concern."

I am not suggesting at all that the laws should be changed--I want them to stay the way they are for reasons already stated in this forum. BUT-----

For those who are all "het-up" about the poor prostitutes and their need to be recognized as legitimate, YOU go to the legislature. YOU argue for a change in laws. BRING IT ON! Either poop or get off the pot! But don't even try to recruit me for a pseudo-compassionate/progressive campaign to decriminalize or even legitimize whoring. Have I made my position clear????

I am sure that the argument for legalizing prostitution has to do with trying to eliminate these unsavory associations with drug use and other illegal practices. However, I suspect that those arguing for legalizing prostitution have primarily their own selfish interests in mind far more than altruistic concerns. I am arguing that the crimes go hand in glove, and the correct answer is not to legalize one unsavory practice ostensibly to segregate it from the others.

Incidentally, heads up, I edited my previous post.

I think it is time we took responsibility for the future generation, the children, instead of worrying about how we're going to get our rocks off with somebody we wouldn't even invite to our dinner table. We're not talking about something valid like race relations or acceptance of people of other faiths. Get real.

There really is a "tyranny of the minority." This thread is a prime example of groups that feel they have to have their own way, even when it runs counter to all the laws on the books in most communities (but one in Nevada, I guess). Why should the wishes of a few be given priority over the more prudent determination of the legislature?

(And if you want to praise Cthulhu, which is a specious what-if argument, considering you already have the freedom to do so and the freedom to not believe in a deity or deities, that's your prerogative. If you inscribe "Praise Cthulhu" or "H.P. Lovecraft is a prophet of the True God" on a monument in a public place, however, be assured that it will be subject to the same restrictions placed on Christian, Muslim, and Jewish monuments, because it is currently interpreted as "the establishment of" religion and is therefore contrary to the Constitution. But I digress...)

If you personally want to champion the "rights" of whores, swell, but you've got a snowball's chance in hell convincing me of the rightness of your behavior, as far as legitimizing prostitution goes.



It appears that you have deliberately misrepresented what I said. The other poster thinks, as she said, that ANY, as in virtually EVERY, occupation is akin to whoring. Read the post. I think she does have a real problem, if that is how she truly feels; it is truly a sad point of view. Your argument is either intended to provoke me or derail my post, unless you really didn't understand what SS was saying in her post.

I have heard that argument often in my life, but mostly from people who were very unhappy with the jobs they held. These were often people who looked forward to stopping at the bars on the way home. Life always seemed bleak and forlorn to them.

I have also known people who thoroughly loved the jobs they held, and the work they did.

I have had postmen who love talking to their customers.

The night clerk at my 7-11 can't imagine not having customers to wait on, and makes certain the coffee is always fresh at 3:30 in the morning, because he has a customer who always buys a cup of coffee at that hour. He is old enough to be drawing a pension, he just can't imagine not working.

The owner of the 7 - 11 pulls my newspaper on a daily basis, and hands it to me as soon as I walk through the door. I'm certain that he isn't making enough profit off that 50 cent purchase to consider himself a "whore" in doing that.

Most artists would tell you that they would rather create, and not make a sale, than to make a better living at some other form of work. Such people develop their skills until someone is willing to pay them. I assure you that a singer performing on stage, who already has a record contract, and money in the bank, is more likely to feel they are there for the applause, and the feedback; than to feel they are prostituting themselves. A painter is always proud to see his work hanging someplace other than his closet. The writer or photographer whose byline is on the front page likely feels more proud than prostitute.

An engineer can design a bridge, a car, or a building and take his/her grandchildren back to see it.

I had teachers that I think about every time that I do what they taught me.

How can I read a book without wondering about the author? A well written book, to me, is the ultimate immortality; not an example of "prostituting" the author's talents.

A whore can do what? Perhaps she can someday say, "I turned a trick on this corner once." Would she remember? Would anyone care?

What skill, or talent would you like to be remembered for? What do you really enjoy doing? Can you find a way to market that skill successfully? There are probably more customers for your talents than you can imagine!

Edited, because as I was trying to sleep, I thought of a few other examples.

I worked with several farmers over the years, and attended church with one. A couple of their stories were sticking in my mind.

The one I went to church with spoke one morning of what it was like to pursue a career:
...where he had never seen the sun rise or set, except from the cab of a tractor.
...where for most of his life, he had raised most of the food his family ate.
...of the major financial gamble he and his brother had undertaken, a multi-million dollar expansion so that they could raise hogs in a modern fashion.
...of how close to God he felt when he was planting or harvesting.
...of how bankruptcy was forcing them to sell a centennial farm.
...and that they planned to go to work as teachers, teaching others the love of farming.
...and their hopes to work something out with the bank, so that they could continue to farm.

Another farmer which I worked with, had been offered a million dollars and a "life-lease" for the purchase of his farm. They had no children, but his wife didn't want him to sell because she felt that moving off the farm he had been born on would kill him. It took me several months to persuade him to take his wife to an attorney and have the offer professionally reviewed. He came into work one day and said, "According to the attorney, they are offering me a $1,000,000, they will assume title to the farm, they will assume the taxes and insurance on the farm, and we can live there rent free until we die. In the meantime, I can operate the farm for a profit, or just retire and enjoy life. Do you think it sounds like a good deal?" He had worked in a factory at that point for 42 years to subsidize the cost of living on a farm. He spoke to everyone on the crew, afraid that the deal would somehow force them off the farm. It was only after a good fall harvest, that he finally accepted the realization that he could retire and continue to live on the farm.

And hey! Wake up! Mike and Jaime started America's Debate working with their own resources, and have acquired an unpaid staff. To the best of my knowledge, they both have "day jobs." They have recently incorporated, and started to accept advertising, but membership is still free! Maybe they'll make a profit from this someday, but this site is certainly a work of love from what I can see.

And I'd tell you about my father; but this doesn't seem to be the right time or place. Trust me though, some people really do work more for the love of their job, than for the money it pays.

An animal in heat takes on all comers; an animal in heat does not discriminate. An animal in heat doesn't care how many other animals mount her. An animal in heat (especially a cat) advertizes her availability by lifting her tail and arching her back and crying to any males in the area.

That is the type of behavior I am describing, that can be seen in your common streetcorner whore, stopping cars and climbing into them without reservation.

But in animals, it's a biological imperative. In whores, it is a conscious decision, devoid of even the basic instinct to procreate.

Just money, money, money. What an artificial reason to compromise your body's integrity! Shouldn't a human being be a little more discriminate about the person with whom s/he copulates? Or is the green of their money the only valid criterion?
Whatever happened to the concept of dignity?

I have more respect for cats than for whores and their customers.

The majority rules, yet there is a tyranny of the minority? These statements sound contradictory.


I suppose I would champion the rights of everyone, regardless of how our ideologies differed. You've claimed that their "outcry" is invalid because they are a "reprobate segment of society." Do you believe the government should judge the worth of its citizens? Should the government base the rights of individuals based on their worth?


Point taken.

I wasn't trying to negate your assertion so much as to provide an example of a legal profession that is extremely close to prostitution, but is still legal. I'm not sure it makes sense to outlaw prostitution without outlawing hardcore pornography. That, and I thought the discussion could use a little levity.


Because they don't infringe on the rights of others? The wishes of the minority are not asking you to conform to their beliefs, but asking that they don't have to conform to yours. Additionally, the determination of legislature is not always prudent, which, I believe, is the point of the discussion. Why were the wishes of a few given priority over the Jim Crow laws? I would argue that it had something to do with the basic rights of citizens that the laws are supposed to protect, regardless of community standards. There are perfectly valid reasons to condone freedoms outside of the "established law" and, therefore, reasons to change the "established law." If you don't believe prostitution is one of them, that's entirely valid. However, I felt it was worthwhile to discuss the grounds on which you are arguing this point.

Welcome to the United States of America. I would point you to the Ten Commandments thread for more material on this contradiction we live with.



The government, which is made up of the people, judges the worth (or worthlessness) of their allegedly chosen occupations, and as a matter of fact, the government does, by taxing people according to what they make legitimately, and prosecuting and fining those who violate the laws in their occupations, some crooked corporate heads notwithstanding.

Again, though, your question suggests a value judgement. In a secular society where spiritual concepts hold little reputed value, lofty assumptions such as all individuals having equal worth (from Judeo-Christian teachings and the teachings of other religions) have been restricted to the writings of people such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, who made references to a Creator. (Whoops--separation of church and state! Whoops! Value judgments based on religion! Guess they can't be separated entirely.)

So, too, my belief that each individual is entitled to dignity, is a value based on religious teachings, values that a secular society purports to adopt without acknowledging their sources.

While I would champion the human rights of anyone, I do not champion their right to debase themselves; rather, I would champion their right to improve themselves and I would desire them to be able to go into women's shelters to get away from pimps and other abusers, and give them an opportunity to learn honest work that would allow them to make a living while recovering their dignity. See the difference?

Caring about people does not mean accepting their self-destructive lifestyle, in my opinion. Pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps is great, but if it is not possible, society gives the individual a hand-up. Ideology based on values.



Thank you.

I was originally not going to respond because of the numerous personal attacks on me in this post, but I've decided that where my post was actually addressed, I will address in turn.

Paladin, I don't care how big of a majority thinks a certain way or the other. This does not mean that judges have to, or should agree with them. The job of the judge is to interpret the constitution, fairly I might add. Not to interpret the constitution to agree with the will of the majority. There are no valid, sound reasons in the Constitution for keeping prostitution illegal.

I am not concerned with convincing you of the "righteousness" of prostitution. What I'm saying is that your religious views hold no basis for prohibiting prostitution. The majority's religious views shouldn't hold any basis for prohibiting prostitution. Again, I reiterate, the job of the judicial branch of the United States government is to interpret the Constitution, not the views of the majority. I have refuted all of your very weak constitutional support for keeping prostitution illegal. Your religion aside, my lack of religion aside. Your morals aside, my morals aside. This debate is whether prostitution should be legal or not. I believe I have proved my case very well, so I really have nothing more to add to the debate unless you can conjure up some more constitutional support for keeping it illegal. If you think I have a "problem" because I don't agree 110% with you, so be it. I'm out of this debate, for now at least.

I have snipped these from separate posts...but same poster.. hope that isn't against any rules
I was hoping suzy, since she is using the Constitution for her argument...would further address this point. Where in the Constitution do we guarantee sexual rights? I totally disagree with you and do not feel that the pursuit of happiness supports legalization of prostitution. Firstly it is not in the Constitution but rather the Declaration of Independence.. No matter tho because I think that it supports the illegal argument for prostitution far better. Government's MAIN objective is to uphold the pursuit of happiness for our society as a whole rather than just for individuals. Government's laws help sustain happiness for society as a whole and may continue to do so as long as they do not conflict with any individual's rights..which is ensured here in the US with the Bill of Rights. Soooo which one of those amendments to our Constitution do you feel protect our sexual rights?

Besides many many people feel that ultimately prostitution is and never will be an act that occurs between two consenting adults as they feel prostitution is akin to slavery, and in many instances (far too many in fact) I believe this is true.

Here is another thing I have been kicking around in my head...if prostitution and the sale of sex is just another commodity or business transaction to you (you being general as this is being asked to anyone who wishes to answer) do you apply the same mentality to rape? Meaning if sex is nothing more than a product to be sold than why do we define it differently in our laws in regards to rape...why is rape a more serious crime than shoplifting or theft?

Bucket,



I think you are taking the hamburger analogy a bit too far in this case. Obviously, we are talking about a SERVICE here, not a PRODUCT. When you originally brought up the analogy of "hamburger", I didn't realize you meant it this literally, otherwise I would have clarified sooner.



What I am talking about is CONSISTENCY. Either businesses have rules or they don't. A brothel is not a "private sexual exchange between two people". It will involve at least one more(owner of brothel, or brothel itself as a corporate entity).It's a business. As such, I feel they should follow standard business guidelines, i.e. reasonably safe for customer, reasonably safe for the employees. This has nothing to do with morals. Are you really going to argue that when the government says that Denny's cannot sell meat infested with maggots they are legislating morality? This is not even on the same level as "vice crimes". Do I really need to explain why? Is this not obvious?





By your logic, me and my next door neighbor should have IDENTICAL views. You are acting like people don't have a choice. There are some people in our society that have the views that the stereotypical man from KSA supposedly should have. And not all people from KSA are as demonic as you think. To answer your question, my views come from my upbringing and my family, not "society". I've lived in one of the crappiest neighborhoods of Brooklyn, and it didn't make me a thug. Then I lived in suburbs, and it didn't make me a "rich-boy yuppie". And for almost 3 years now I've been stationed in Texas, and guess what, I still dislike country music. You seem to think that people just grow into whatever stereotype is assigned to their environment. That's a pretty sad and closed-minded way of looking at people. I'll reiterate: Family and upbringing.



So in your opinion the owner of said brothel shouldn't have to show their income to the IRS? Shouldn't keep the brothel to OSHA standards in any way? Does the nature of the business being conducted mean that the owner of the brothel should not be held responsible if a rotted out beam falls on a customer's head and kills him? I can give more examples, but I think you get what I'm trying to say.



I should make myself clearer, it does sound contradictory to other things I have said. First of all, the government should NOT be in the business of controlling perception. In the case of puritanical views, this is exactly what they try to do. Look at "abstinence education", all those "I choose not to have sex" commercials, how any time there is any nudity on TV it has to be blurred out (aside from cable), etc. But even this wouldn't be that big of an issue if not for (once again) upbringing. So many parents are terrified of the idea of their kids having sex. They are terrified of their kids seeing nudity, more terrified of their kids knowing about sex before they are "ready". Religion is also a factor here. Of course if a person is taught that sex is the "forbidden fruit" their whole life, they will regard it as such. I was not brought up that way, therefore I don't see things that way. I think the link is clear. But once again, the government should not try to control perception of sex. It's not their business.

And just so we have a definition of "legalize":

legalize

v. le·gal·ized, le·gal·iz·ing, le·gal·iz·es
To make legal or lawful; authorize or sanction by law.

v : make legal; "Marijuana should be legalized" [syn: decriminalize, legitimize, legitimate, legitimatize] [ant: outlaw, outlaw]

Decriminalization IS legalization.



For the same reason why organ donation is legal, whereas tackling a person to the ground, and cutting out their kidney isn't. For the same reason that your boss can make you work your butt off, but cannot own you as a slave.

Paladin Elspeth,



Not a fan of self-determination? Who decides what is "debasing"?



It's something just as valid, at least to some of us. Some of us feel that the road to happiness is paved with self-determination. I AM worrying about the future, and about the children. My first child is due in a matter of days , and it angers me beyond belief that he will be born without one of the most basic and implicit freedoms: the freedom over your own body. The freedom to ingest what you want, to "pursue your happiness" however you want, as long as you don't hurt others.



So you feel that the government should protect people from themselves? What if the people do not want this protection? What if they want to live according to THEIR values, without hurting others? Why should somebody live only in a manner compatible with the government's idea of a good life? Why are you so opposed to free will? If someone wants to be a prostitute does it force anyone to be a customer? I really don't understand.

And since religion just HAD to be brought into this, I'll close up with main principle of mine:

"An it harm none, do as ye will."

Oh thx for the clarification but I was going pretty far with that hamburger example right from the beginning as I find it ridiculous...you are the one who insisted that it IS like buying a hamburger. Well when you buy a hamburger the gov tells you how when and why, it taxes it, it regulates it and it legislates this hamburger sale for morality as well as public safety...all of which could be said for laws against prostitution.


Oh come on now you are going too far. You are the one who claimed that societal perception is a myth. I am just stating it isn't and you in fact do differ from people from other cultures because guess what you have different cultures. You claimed society can only grant people rights...but that is what we have regulated or restricted our gov in only doing. Society does a lot lot more..that is why I feel what we do in it is so important.

So you don't think you are an American but rather a Looms and the son of Looms' mother and father? Do you never see yourself or identify yourself as a person of your society...which is as an American? You have knowledge and perceptions of things that I will never have just for the simple fact that you have lived in Texas and I never have. You argue that one's environment does not dictate one's views or perceptions and yet at the same time tell me that those things are determined from one's family...family=environment. We as people of a free and open society have many many outlets in which we experience our environment in. Besides do you feel your mother and father are some kind of high energy shield from the outside world...their upbringing of you was also heavily influenced by society. No? You don't think your mum got ideas on how to deal with you from reading a popular baby book or magazine of her era that all other American mums read? Do you thi