toldailytopic: Should prostitution be universally legalized?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nydhogg

Nydhogg

New member
Consensual human interaction, I mean. Robbing a store ain't consensual interaction at all.

Government (if we should have one at all), should protect citizens's rights from aggression by others. Government is in no way empowered to use force against the people to "protect" them from their own vices, nor does it have any standing at all to criminalize consensual conduct.
 
B

bybee

New member
Well then

Well then

Nydhogg said:
Consensual human interaction, I mean. Robbing a store ain't consensual interaction at all.

Government (if we should have one at all), should protect citizens's rights from aggression by others. Government is in no way empowered to use force against the people to "protect" them from their own vices, nor does it have any standing at all to criminalize consensual conduct.
Click to expand...
Ah then, there's the rub, one must define consenual behavior. There is, I am told, an organization lobbying for the legality of man/boy love. Apparently they believe that if the boy "consents" it ought to be legal.
And then, of course, there is the "Lolita" fiction which dwells in the fetid brain cells of some men being slowly strangled by the sperm emboli which clog their brains. They believe if the little girl "consents" it ought to be legal.
"Concent" has a legal definition. Law is, or ought to be, a factor of morality, history, community mores and workability.
For instance, as annoying as you are, I uphold and defend your freedom to whiz in the wind!
 
MaryContrary

MaryContrary

New member
Hall of Fame
Nydhogg said:
Consensual human interaction, I mean. Robbing a store ain't consensual interaction at all.
Click to expand...
Expression does not require consent, so I still deny the applicability of freedom of expression arguments for sexuality. Consent is a good point, though.
Nydhogg said:
Government (if we should have one at all), should protect citizens's rights from aggression by others. Government is in no way empowered to use force against the people to "protect" them from their own vices, nor does it have any standing at all to criminalize consensual conduct.
Click to expand...
We've discussed this before haven't we? The government outlaws many consensual acts as crimes because the harm caused extends out from those directly participating and consenting. Prostitution is a favorite example for both sides in that debate, so I'm sure you're aware of the arguments, even if you don't recall our discussing it. I think it boils down to your preferring that society suffer for the sake of individual freedoms where others prefer to curtail individual freedoms for society's sake. Correct?
 
Nydhogg

Nydhogg

New member
Therein lies the rub.

Some would trade other people's freedom for the sake of enforcing their values on others. I contend that it's an immoral trade.
 
MaryContrary

MaryContrary

New member
Hall of Fame
Nydhogg said:
Therein lies the rub.

Some would trade other people's freedom for the sake of enforcing their values on others. I contend that it's an immoral trade.
Click to expand...
By reducing the arguments you're presented with to mere "enforcing their values on others", with no regard to why, you concede the debate. You, too, would enforce your values on others, you know. The reasons why either side would do so is the argument here.
 
Nydhogg

Nydhogg

New member
Not really. I'm not supporting enforcing anything.

I'm supporting people being kept free from State intervention.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Nydhogg said:
Not really. I'm not supporting enforcing anything.

I'm supporting people being kept free from State intervention.
Click to expand...

These people talk a good game about wanting a "small government" until they realize they can't do what they want without a very large, intrusive government indeed.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
However, in today's society most relationships are legalized prostitution in which goods are exchanged for sex.
Click to expand...

That's what Karl Marx said. It's one of the foundational statements for Communism.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
The Barbarian said:
That's what Karl Marx said. It's one of the foundational statements for Communism.
Click to expand...

...and beyond being a complete and utter crock you could go one step further and say marriage is essentially prostitution in that both parties exchange material comfort and goods in exchange for sex.
 
G

Gurucam

Well-known member
bybee said:
Who creates the market for these services? Can love be bought or sold?
A human being is a soul within a body which functions within a society. Societies have laws. Because man is strong and aggressive woman and children need protection. Marriage is a method of protecting women and children. And in a good marriage, a man finds completion.
Click to expand...

Urgings of love have nothing to do with ideals and laws.

Those who can and do discern urgings of love within their heart must obey same unconditionally, even if such urgings of love arises and are sustained naturally and spontaneously for more than one or many love making partners, even at the same time.

In the body of Christ one can be expected to transgress our most precious ideal or law.

God's will for Abraham was that he transgress the thou shall not kill a human commandments. A human that was most precious and dear to him.

This request was not a smaller request like, to transgress the thou shall not commit adultery commandments.

God's will was that Abraham transgress the thou shall not kill a child (his own child) commandments.

Abraham's willingness to unconditionally obey God counted for righteousness of God and earned him the very special promise of the Spirit from God.

Why, because Abraham was willing to obey God, absolutely willingly, even if he had to transgress the ultimate idea or law.

This is what qualified Abraham to receive the Spirit. He was simply willing to unconditionally obey precisely what the God wanted Him to do, even if he had to transgress ideals and laws of society, morality and religiosity which includes the Ten Commandments.

Then God sent the Spirit of His Son into the hearts of those under the law so that they might becomes adopted children of God. This tells us that those under the law are not children of God. At best they are righteous seeking children of the flesh.

Humans will know precisely what God will for each of them, by discerning precisely what the Spirit has in mind for each of them from within each of their own heart. The mind of the Spirit is always in line with the will of God.

Jesus through Paul said search your heart to know precisely what the Spirit has in mind for you. Jesus through Paul did not say search the scriptures to know precisely what the Spirit has in mind for you. And Jesus through Paul also confirmed that the mind of the Spirit is always in line with the will of God. And those who are led by the Spirit are children of God.

The Apostles also confirmed that those who are led by the Spirit have justification to do the things that they were not justified to do under the law.

It is therefore clear that those who are led by precisely what the Spirit has in mind for them are a New and different set of people. They are simply not under the law. The law are 'done away with' for them. They were circumcised and now they are uncircumcised. They have a new gospel which is the gospel of un-circumcision which was committed onto Paul. This is righteousness of God without the law. This is the Spirit. Those who are led by the Spirit are children of God or Christians.

These people must in real every day life be like Abraham. They must be unconditionally obedient to precisely what the Spirit has in mind for them as discerned within their own individual heart, even if they have to transgress the Ten Commandments and/or all other social moral and religious ideals and laws.

Indeed the Spirit will be calling on them to do the things that they were not justified to do under the law.

The idea is to be able to discern what is the Spirit within one's heart.

We know that God is love and only those who have loved know God. We know also therefore, that urgings of love are the will of God and we know that what the Spirit has in mind for one is always in line with the will of God.

Therefore what the Spirit has in mind for us as discerned within our heart must center on urgings of love which arises and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within our individual heart for very specific people, things and circumstances with no regard for any ideal or law.

You might ask why must these urging of love arise and be sustained naturally and spontaneously. The reason is that they must arise out of God's volition and not ours because they are the will of God.

Also you might ask why must must these urgings of love also arise and be sustained for very specific people things and circumstances. The reason is that these urgings of love are an indication of God's precise will for each of us and therefore these must point us in very specific directions, with very specific people, things and circumstance in God's creation. These urgings of love will reveal to each of us our individual and precise mission in the body of Christ.

Therefore to be in Christ one must be able to search one's heart to know precisely what the Spirit has in mind for one. That is one's heart must not be covered by 'vails'. One must be aware of one's heart. That is one must be spiritually aware. One cannot be 'dead within'.

Then one must unconditionally obey precisely what the Spirit has in mind for one as discerned within one's own heart, in real time every time, even if one has to transgress all ideals and laws of society, morality and religiosity (including the Ten Commandments).

The next question would be how do we identify the Spirit within our heart? And indeed, above, we have identified the nature of the Spirit so we can say:

To be 'in Christ' one must be:

unconditionally obedient to those urgings of love which arises and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within one's own individual heart for those specific people, things and circumstances in God's creation even if one has to transgress all ideals and laws of society, morality and religiosity (including the Ten Commandments).

If therefore urging of love for love making arises and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within one's heart for many different partners in God creation, then that is one's God given mission in the body of Christ. Then one's divine mission is to receive men (or women) in Christ and freely make love to them if it is one's heart's desire to do so with these men/women (of the opposite sex). Not only does one in Christ has freedom, liberty and justification to do so. One will be glorified by God for doing so.

And forget all this nonsense about those in Christ must still be under the law. That is absolute foolishness with God.

Every one is however obliged to uphold the laws of the land. This is why it is necessary for governments to endorse prostitution by making it 'legal' as a law of the land. And indeed if governments want to be founded on Truth or Jesus, they must do so. However in democracy what the government does must be the will of the majority of the population. If the majority of a country's populations is not enlightened then ideals and laws of land in that county remains in the dark age.

Finally

You said: 'Because man is strong and aggressive woman and children need protection'.

Are you aware that God protect His own in 'unseen' ways? Those who are God's own are children of God. They are few on earth. They are the chosen few.

Children of the flesh are not God's own. They are 'the dead' who are referred to in "let the dead bury their dead". Indeed they cannot access the protection of God unseen ways. They must depend on the earthly devises for man (i.e. unaware people), like the formal institution of marriages and the law etc.



 
Last edited:
MaryContrary

MaryContrary

New member
Hall of Fame
Nydhogg said:
Not really. I'm not supporting enforcing anything.

I'm supporting people being kept free from State intervention.
Click to expand...
This is what you said:
Nydhogg said:
Some would trade other people's freedom for the sake of enforcing their values on others. I contend that it's an immoral trade.
Click to expand...
That's imposing your values on others.

Now, if you're willing to say something as stupid as, "Well, it's okay to impose your values on others but not to enforce them...see, I was talking about enforcing them."

Well, you go right ahead and say that. I won't mind a bit.
 
Traditio

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Nydhogg said:
I take it that you support decriminalization but not full-blown legalization, then.
Click to expand...

Basically. That said, it's not a matter of not supporting full blown legalization. As a matter of fact, I don't think that the State can legalize prostitution. With St. Augustine I say that an unjust law is not a law, but rather a kind of violence. So yes, the State can make a "law," but if it contradicts a moral principle, then the "law" is unlawful.

As a matter of fact, I simply don't think that there can be such a thing as a business contract for sex. Sex can't be traded in a business sense. When you make a contract, you have a moral and a legal obligation to make good on your contract. If I pay you 10 dollars for your hat, I have a moral and a legal obligation to give you the 10 dollars, and you have a moral and a legal obligation to give me your hat.

This obligation can't exist in the case of sex. I mean, a general "obligation" can exist in the context of marriage, sure...but that's entirely different.

So...what's my stance with respect to the "legality" of prostitution? The best position that the State could have towards prostitution, I think, is merely to ignore its existence. There should be a law saying something to the extent of: "Prostitution does not exist in a legal sense."

You say there's no grounds for making it a crime. Then criminalizing it is deeply wrong.
Click to expand...

Careful. I'm not convinced of this point. Even if something is not, in itself, unlawful in a moral sense, the State may still have a right to prohibit it. For example, the U.S. prohibited the sale of alcohol, even though there is nothing wrong, in itself, with it. For all that, was it wrong for the State to imprison people who broke the law? Well...maybe not. Having read the Crito (Plato) and (short sections of) the Leviathan (Hobbes), it occurs to me that the State may be justified in enforcing a so called "arbitrary" law.

I think it's interesting that Newman earlier said that the government has no special moral authority. Well, not quite. I don't have a right to do certain things to other people (for example, imprison them, take their money, etc.) because I have no moral claim to their person. At least to some extent, though, I have some moral claim to my own. If I were to tell you that I've wrongfully imprisoned myself or stolen my own property from myself, you'd rightly call me a madman. Well, likewise, the State, Hobbes argues, is identical to every man in the State. The American government is identical to every American citizen considered collectively.

Well, if the State and I are identical, then is it possible for the State, having imposed a law, wrongfully to imprison me when I break the law, as arbitrary as the law may be? No. That's the same as saying that I, having resolved to obey a certain resolution of mine and then broken that resolution, decided afterwards not to leave my home. Presupposing I still have access to all of the basic goods of human life and am still able to fulfill my obligations, it's not clear that I've wronged myself.

I, being identical to the State, have made the resolution that the State passed.

I, being identical to the State, resolved to punish myself if I broke that resolution.

Having broken the resolution, I, being identical to the State, resolved to punish myself.

My family members and friends, being identical to the State, discharged whatever obligations I may have had to them.

You see?

The only law that the State cannot make is one which breaks the Moral Law.
 
T

Todah

New member
RE: legalized prostitution;

It would certainly be unwise, to say the least. Read proverbs chapters 7 thru 9. Prov 7:22 is especially good.

If your aim is to ruin a society, by turning young men from their purpose in life, and thwart their true ambitions, then that is what you would do. Legalize prostitution, and all drugs, for that matter, as well.

When Balaam was unable to curse Israel, he advised Balak to send the Midianite women to play the harlots, to achieve the King's purposes. It worked for a while, and many lost their lives.

I do not think that it is specifically poor schooling and teachers that has caused American youth to fall behind the other nations in Math and the sciences. It is the distractions of sex-ed and sex- practices, that diminish "ambition" more than intelligence.
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Nydhogg said:
The Law never applied (and should never apply) to gentiles outside the Land of Israel. Enforcing it on secular Americans would be utterly Pharisaic and possibly even sinful.
Click to expand...
So I'm free to rape, murder, steal and commit perjury? Woo-Hoo!


:rolleyes:

Moron
 
Cracked

Cracked

New member
lovemeorhateme said:
Sex isn't a commodity to be bought and sold at will. It is supposed to be a special act, and prostitution cheapens it.

So, no, I don't think prostitution should be legalised, legitimising that which God clearly says is sin.
Click to expand...

Their are many legal sins. That being stated I don't support its legalization.
 
Ktoyou

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
It is morally wrong because it degrades women. Should the day come when as many men are prostitutes, then that aspect would partly change, yet that will never be be case. Why is this so? It is unnatural for women to do so, unless there is a economic incentive.

Now, by no means, am I asserting that other reasons stated here are invalid, they most certainly are valid to me. What I am adding is a reason beyond the differential of personal morality, by conveying a purely human reality, it degrades women and that is why there is money in it.
 
Traditio

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Ktoyou said:
It is morally wrong because it degrades women.
Click to expand...

1. What does that have to do with law?

2. Whereas I quite agree with the assertion that prostitution degrades women, it is precisely for this reason that I don't think that it should be illegal in the current sense. If the victims of prostitution are the very prostitutes themselves, is it right to put them in jail?

I simply don't understand this line of reasoning. "Prostitution hurts and degrades women...prostitutes tend to be desparate, addicted to drugs, and otherwise victimized in every conceivable way...they've never had a chance. So...let's put them in jail!"
 
aSeattleConserv

aSeattleConserv

BANNED
Banned
Traditio said:
I simply don't understand...
Click to expand...

A lot of things it appears.

Right Wing Catholic huh?

Your constant defense of the immoral act of prostitution tells me two things:

1) You need to go to confession at least a dozen times a day.
2) You definitely need to find a girlfriend; no, not the kind of girlfriend this thread is about, but one that espouses true Christian values.
 
Traditio

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
aSeattleConserv said:
A lot of things it appears.

Right Wing Catholic huh?

Your constant defense of the immoral act of prostitution tells me two things:
Click to expand...

I'm not defending prostitution. I outright said earlier that I don't think that there can be such a thing as a lawful business exchange for sex. I merely don't think that it's the sort of thing that should carry a prison sentence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top