marriage and government

Quote from axeman:

Shoe... you are confusing your opponents CLAIM that
women should have a RIGHT to be a prostitute, and them
thinking that its actually a good idea.


I would NOT want my daughter being a prostitute for
MANY rational reasons...disease, social repercussions, etc...

But a consenting adult SHOULD have the right
to be a prostitute. Big difference.

You and the government do NOT have the right to tell
ME what I can do with my body. I am NOT your property OR
the governments.
More...

I am not confused about that (in my own mind at least). I am trying to clearly argue that a community does not need to allow in their community what they feel will damage families.

Also, recognize that underlying all of your statements is a huge contemporary, Western-thinking bias: it's okay NOT to protect your family. If prostitution hurts families and kids, why is it okay to allow it in your neighborhood? There's only one reason in my opinion: you care more about justifying a hedonistic lifestyle than you don't care enough about children.

Like I said, even a mafioso don would not expose his kids to prostitution.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

1. Let me ask you a question: do you ever wonder why there are no studies showing the stats on kids of prostitutes? Well, let me explain why: the profiles on kids that come out of divorced homes are bad enough: noone is going to waste their money studying kids that come out of homes of prosititution!
I can't believe I'm having this conversation!

2. Yeah, that would be real smart! Let's study the profiles of the kids that come from those nasty, stable home environments. That'll really help our community! In our community we're only going to allow strippers, prostitutes and nudists...
More...

This argument does not apply to a prostitute who does not have kids.

Also, you are supposed to be justifying turning someone into a criminal and violently ostracising them from their home & neighbourhood. This requires more than just saying they are a bad parent. After all, we don't lock up or exile parents with a booze problem, or divorced mothers who sleep around or date violent boyfriends.

I will try to make it very clear -

A childless woman, for whatever reason, decides to try and charge money in return for offering sexual favours. In what way does that justify caging her like an animal and running her out of her homeland?

Your reasons so far:

i) the kids will suffer

Answer - she has no kids, so it's irrelevant. Even if she had kids, then she ought to be charged with being "not fit to bring up a child", just like an alcoholic or mentally disturbed parent, and have the kids taken into care, not have herself thrown in jail and exiled. It is "being a bad parent" you are objecting to here, not prostitution per se.

ii) you don't like it

Answer - "not liking something" does not justify the use of violence to prevent it, or making it a crime. There are many things people do not "like", that are perfectly legal, because it is someone's right to do unpopular things, as long as they do not harm non-consenting 3rd parties.

iii) it's "immoral"

Answer - so is swearing, calling your mother a bitch, worshipping Satan, being rude, cheating on your girlfriend, lying, and so on. None of these are jailable offences or considered "criminal".

iv) it offends community sensibilities

Answer - America is not a communist country. Property is private and generally owned by individuals, not owned communally by all. As long as the "offensiveness" is not taking place on public property, then it is none of the communities business. That is the whole idea of inalienable individual rights - people have natural liberty, that is *not* subject to being overriden by the sensibilities of the crowd. Every citizen in America could vote to jail Hilary Clinton for being annoying, but it would still be wrong to do so.

v) you wouldn't want your daughter to be a prostitute

No, I wouldn't. Equally, I wouldn't want her to have sex with Rupert Murdoch, or get drunk and flash her tits at a frat party. Please explain to me how that implies that it should be a criminal offence for a woman to shag 70-something billionaires or to flash her tits in private?

So, what is your reason for criminalising payment for sex? Please give a *reasoned* answer, based on logical inference from accepted axioms. Do not make up straw men, invent erroneous assumptions about your opponent's position, ask irrelevant questions, use ad hominem arguments, sarcastic remarks, or employ other schoolboy debating tricks in an attempt to dodge the issue.
 
Quote from Turok:

>"Don't label us all as Ted Turner Hollywood types."
>Instead I find that he is your king!

>All I can say is this: are there any atheists out there
>who are actually willing to take a moral stand?

Ok Shoe, I was wrong. You really are no different than GG. You don't really want to have an educational exchange, you simply wish to crank people by making grand and inflamatory statements about particular groups.

Do you remember how GG bothered you that way just yesterday? Apparently your morals allow you to treat others with disrespect thus your morals offer me nothing. If you wish to convince someone that your morals are attractive, begin with demonstration.

I'll strive for mine thank you.

Bye
JB
More...

Okay, I apologize. As I look back on it, some of what I said was definitely inflammatory. I guess I was hoping to get someone to think from a different perspective, but that's clearly not working, so I'll respectfully back off.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


I'm simply saying this:

1. "If you're going to have kids, then consider the fact that your unstable lifestyle may very well make their life a floating shipwreck."
2. "Communities and states have the right to enforce their own (Constitutional of course) standards that protect their families."
More...

I didn't disagree with 1. However I would point out that many people think that trying to indoctrinate a child into religious thought, and forcing them to attend church services etc is highly undesireable. So your "save the kids" argument could theoretically be used as a reason to take your kids away and give them an education where they are taught about *all* points of view regarding religion and other moral matters.

2 is an acceptable reason for regulating conduct in *public*. What happens behind closed doors does not affect your family's safety at all.

In addition, you say "constitutional of course". The Constitution merely elucidates already-existing natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By definition this means that if someone is not infringing anyone's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which selling sex on private property does not do), then they have a natural right to indulge in any behaviour they choose. Note that the Constitution does not mention a right to regulate other people's behaviour because you don't like it, or because it offends your sensibilities, or because it is unpopular.

Your position, as stated above, could be used to justify preventing streetwalking, sex in public on the street in front of your home, and so on. It cannot justify infringing on sexual relations in private, unless someone is harmed against their will during the act (e.g. child pornography).
 
A woman can't stop a VD infected man from raping her. A woman can demand a man use a condom, but he can take it off and still penetrate her.

How often do you hear of prostitutes claiming to have been raped by a John, and seeing the John prosecuted?

Trasmission of disease happens to both those with and without brains.

There is an element of risk that is a reason for a loving parent not to want their children to undertake.

One other factor, like or not, there is a stigma with prostitution that will not go away any time soon.

If you want your daughter to have all available opportunities as she grows older, having "prostitute" on a resume doesn't help.

Most well adjusted normal men might like to have sex with a hooker, but marry one?

Quote from tikipoki:

Well hey thats the difference between a hooker with brains who doesnt get poked by a museum of VD and a stupid one who does...

Tiki
More...
 
The government has the right to tell people what to do with their bodies.

A person may not agree with the the laws a government passes, but the government has the right to pass laws that tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

It is against the law to take one's own life.

The government has the rights granted to them by the voters. If people don't like it, they can vote in a new government.

The government has to balance out what is best for society as a whole, which allowing the greatest possible personal freedom, no simple task.

However, to say that a government has no right to pass laws to prohibit what people do to their own bodies is not correct.

What an individual does personally can and does have an impact on society, so if a person does something to himself that has a negative effect on the society as a whole, then the government not only has a right, but an obligation to stop that person from acting in a manner that may harm society.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

A woman can't stop a VD infected man from raping her. A woman can demand a man use a condom, but he can take it off and still penetrate her.

How often do you hear of prostitutes claiming to have been raped by a John, and seeing the John prosecuted?

Trasmission of disease happens to both those with and without brains.

There is an element of risk that is a reason for a loving parent not to want their children to undertake.

One other factor, like or not, there is a stigma with prostitution that will not go away any time soon.

If you want your daughter to have all available opportunities as she grows older, having "prostitute" on a resume doesn't help.

Most well adjusted normal men might like to have sex with a hooker, but marry one?
More...

Any woman can get raped, also any woman can claim being raped and people can get sued. As for the risk in having sex with multiple partners, I too have that risk with one night stands from clubs or whatever, dont I?

No hooker-specific risk here, also, I was not telling people to marry a hooker!

Tiki
 
There are species of animals that mate for life, so your argument about nature supporting your absolute ideas is not absolute.

Since you have no authoritarian morality, just your own, please answer me this:

Is okay for a man to have sex with a boy, as long as the sex is consensual?

NAMBLA claims it to be okay, and quotes scientific studies to support their position.

What is your position on this?

Quote from Gordon Gekko:

bill o'reilly said something like...once you open the door to allowing civil unions between gays, you open the door to other kinds of relationships. WELL GUESS WHAT, the door never should have been opened in the first place with TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. that's the real problem; that never should have happened. instead of a list of "valid relationships" according to the government, government should play no role--including traditional christian marriage.

time and time again, this is NOT about christians being treated fairly; THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE SPECIAL TREATMENT THEY'VE HAD FOR DECADES. they will lose it, though; progress will not be stopped no matter what you people think.

our government should not care if i have 1 wife, 0 wives, or 15. they should also not care if a man is with a man, woman is with a woman, or a man is with another man and 3 women! GOVERNMENT SHOULD GET THE F OUT.

males were not meant to be married, anyway. if you disagree, you're disagreeing with me AND NATURE.
More...
 
If an attractive but uneducated woman can earn $100k+ per year as a hooker, that might be worth the "lack of respect" compared to working as a waitress or checkout girl on $15k.

If a man earned $100k+ screwing rich businesswomen, he wouldn't be treated like an outcast, so why the double standard? What is that except pure sexism?
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

There are species of animals that mate for life, so your argument about nature supporting your absolute ideas is not absolute.

Since you have no authoritarian morality, just your own, please answer me this:

Is okay for a man to have sex with a boy, as long as the sex is consensual?

NAMBLA claims it to be okay, and quotes scientific studies to support their position.

What is your position on this?
More...

name me those species! then add whether they are hunters or prey, just for fun!

Tiki
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top