Prostitution: Legalized?

[DesertFox]

Not at all. No one is saying prostitution should be allowed in residential neighborhoods. As has been stated, it should be kept to the redlight district and away from where kids have their noses rubbed in it. It's one of those subjects, like porn, that should be tightly regulated and should not be talked about in polite society.

[DoctorDoom]

In Nevada, whoring is legal, BUT ...

Legal situation

Under Nevada state law, any county with a population of less than 400,000 as of the last decennial census[1] is allowed to license brothels if it so chooses.[2] As of the most recent census in 2000, only Clark County (which contains Las Vegas) had a population above 400,000.[3] Incorporated towns and cities in counties that allow prostitution may regulate the trade further or prohibit it altogether.

As of July 2004, brothels are illegal under county or municipal law in Washoe County (which contains Reno), Carson City (an independent city), Douglas County, and Lincoln County. Eureka County neither permits nor prohibits licensed brothels and does not have any. The other 11 counties permit licensed brothels in certain specified areas or cities.[4]

The precise licensing requirements vary from county to county. License fees for brothels range from an annual $100,000 in Storey County to an annual $200 in Lander County. Licensed prostitutes must be at least 21 years old, except in Storey County and Lyon County, where the legal age is 18.

State law requires that registered brothel prostitutes be checked weekly for several sexually transmitted diseases and monthly for HIV; furthermore, condoms are mandatory for all oral sex and sexual intercourse. Brothel owners may be held liable if customers become infected with HIV after a prostitute has tested positive for the virus.[5]

Nevada has laws against engaging in prostitution outside of licensed brothels, against encouraging others to become prostitutes, and against living off the proceeds of a prostitute.Prostitution in Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada)

[TeenageRepublican]

That's the kind of system I support. ^^^

[DesertFox]

What does "oy vey" mean? :question:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

What does "oy vey" mean? :question:


"Oy Vey" - Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oy_vey)
a Yiddish exclamation of dismay or exasperation

[DesertFox]

Thankee, ma'am.

[The_Elucidator]

Incredible! 245 posts on whether or not whoring should be legal. Oy vey!

A society can be defined by what it tolerates. And America tolerates everything but God and His laws.

There's a spot on the trashheap of history waiting for our country.

I know Doc, I know. The farther we separate ourselves from God the more vulnerable this country and its people become. Fornicating, packing fudge and slaughtering babies has become a matter of privacy in lieu of morality.

[LivingDeadGirl]

That's the kind of system I support. ^^^
Exactly

[Kathy30]

There are so many areas in every city where prostitution is so common, it may as well be legal. Certainly no one is rounding up and arresting the whores. Anyone who wants to see prositution legalized is absolutely free to go live in these areas, then come and report whether they enjoy it or not.

There are reasons why Amsterdam is closing or has closed down its own legal red light district. Before we legalize it, it would be prudent to see why they are closing.

[LivingDeadGirl]

IF it ever became legal, it would be regulated. It's not like there would be brothels opening up in every neighborhood.

Think of bars. At least where I live they have to have a liquor license and I can tell you they are NOT easy to get. If ANYONE in the neighborhood has a problem with a place getting one, you can pretty much be assured it's not going to happen. Heck, a local Wal-Mart can't even get one because there are TWO people in the neighborhood close by who are worried about the attention it might attract.

I can't imagine they'd just hand out brothel licenses any easier.

[Lazarus]

I know Doc, I know. The farther we separate ourselves from God the more vulnerable this country and its people become. Fornicating, packing fudge and slaughtering babies has become a matter of privacy in lieu of morality.No you can't make the moral arguement here, Luc - Didn't you get the memo?

Since some here have so vehemantly argued that Prostitution is amoral, and is strictly a legal question, once they have their way and it is leaglaized, one wonders why they would then argue that it should be kept out of residential neighborhoods - kept in the redlight disctricts - hidden from the kiddies, and not mentioned in polite society... And yet polite society doesn't mind collecting tax revenues from it...

If its strictly amoral, why hide it away? Is it not unlike the milkman and the neighborhood grocery store? Afterall, they sell wine and cigarettes but are prohibited from selling them to children...

So its amoral, yet for some inexplicable reason we're gonna hide the brothels away from the kiddies, lest they see the exteriors of these buildings and know what goes on inside, but we're not gonna miss the opportunity to collect tax revenue from it... There was time in our culture when that kind of policy was defined as hypocracy...

[LivingDeadGirl]

Strip clubs are perfectly legal, and I find them highly immoral. I do not want them in residential neighborhoods and from what I can tell at least in my area, so do most people. In my poor city we have not only the "world famous" Big Al's but FOUR other strip joints...none are in residential neighborhoods, nor should they be. Most people see that as common sense.
Same goes for adult bookstores (porn). It's highly immoral and I don't see porn shops opening up in all the residential neighborhoods. Why, because just because something is legal doesn't mean that people want it in their back yards.

[Lazarus]

Strip clubs are perfectly legal, and I find them highly immoral. I do not want them in residential neighborhoods and from what I can tell at least in my area, so do most people. In my poor city we have not only the "world famous" Big Al's but FOUR other strip joints...none are in residential neighborhoods, nor should they be. Most people see that as common sense.
Same goes for adult bookstores (porn). It's highly immoral and I don't see porn shops opening up in all the residential neighborhoods. Why, because just because something is legal doesn't mean that people want it in their back yards.Oh im not arguing that point, LDG... I fully understand and agree with you... But some here have aggresively argued that this is NOT a question of morality - that morality should be kept in the mind of the individual and has no place being imposed on the rest of society...

So I fail to see the logic when those very same people suggest that a thing that they have defined as not a moral issue, should be tucked away out of the sight of kiddies and polite society - It do seem to me to be proposing a double standard...

[Suzie]

Children see cigarettes being sold and smoked even if they can't buy them. That was part of what some argued should keep smoking out of public eye. But some don't see that as a moral issue either. We were always taught that it was a sin to smoke in the church I grew up in. But I have been to other churches where it isn't an issue. You couldn't even be a deacon in the Church I grew up in if you smoked. I guess as with everything it depends on your own personnel moral convictions.

I don't want my kids to know about prostitution, but there are a lot of things I don't want them around. Seems like other parents don't see things the way I do though based on what they let their kids watch on TV or the movies they will take them to see. :(

[DoctorDoom]

The crux of the issue is the obsequious pandering to the lowest, vilest elements of society, and the attacks on anyone who protests about it. And it happens incrementally, one "only" at a time.

<hr>
"Today, most of the good people are afraid to be good. They strive to be broadminded and tolerant. It is fashionable to be tolerant — but mostly tolerant of evil — and this new code has reached the proportions of demanding intolerance of good."
-- Lady Queenborough (Edith Starr Miller), Occult Theocracy, 1933

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The one word that should be zealously avoided in discussions of the depth to which man can sink is "never". The power of incrementalism has been irrefutably proven in America. One need only compare our culture in 2008 with that of America in 1958 to realize that evil insinuates itself into a society gradually and stealthily, "only" by "only".

Compromising with the ungodly is NEVER just a little.

Once upon a time, a company was selling gallon jugs of pure spring water. To save money, it decided to replace one drop of water with raw sewage in each gallon of water. "It is only a little compromise," the company reasoned. "No one would be likely to taste it and it certainly wouldn't hurt anyone." So, for a while it sold gallon jugs of water with one drop of sewage. No one was affected by the change.

After a while, the company added another drop. "It's only a one-drop change, and nobody noticed the first one," they rationalized. And, nobody noticed the second one. Or the third or fourth or fifth or tenth one, each one being only a one-drop change that the people accepted because it was only a very slight change over time.

When the company was adding twenty drops, sensitive people began to experience adverse effects, and said, "It's the water. There's something wrong with it."
"Don't be absurd," the majority replied. "We all drink it and it's not affecting us."

And, over time the number of drops went up to thirty and forty and fifty, one drop of sewage at a time, and people didn't notice the one-drop change, even when more and more people were experiencing adverse reactions.

And a group of those who were sensitive to the pollution united and told the people, "We KNOW there is something wrong with this water. It's making us ill and it certainly cannot be good for anyone."
"Will you fanatical whiners PLEASE shut up? There's nothing wrong with the water."

And then someone in the group found in a back room several bottles of the original pure spring water. He tasted it and said, "There IS something different with our water." Taking the jugs with them, they went to the people and said, "Taste this, and see what we mean."

They handed out glasses of the pure water, and the people spat it out and said, "This is disgusting. What were they selling us back then?" With that, they destroyed the pure water, drove out the group from their midst, and went back to drinking their sewage.

When society becomes accustomed to the slow, stealthy infusion of evil, there comes a time when those who point out the evil are decried as zealots for standing for what is right and good. A society that abandons the absolutes of right and wrong is left with nothing on which to base its value judgments, and is at the mercy of whatever ephemeral standard is in vogue. Inevitably, those who cite the original standards are dismissed as fools or assailed as meddling fanatics.

No nation or culture or civilization has turned its back on God's eternal, immutable standards of right and wrong and as a result improved itself. Ours won't be the first.

[ThomasMore]

Since some here have...argued that prostitution is amoral, and...strictly a legal question...one wonders why they would then argue that it should be kept out of residential neighborhoods...hidden from the kiddies, and not mentioned in polite society...And yet polite society doesn't mind collecting tax revenues from it...

If its strictly amoral, why hide it away? There was time in our culture when that kind of policy was defined as hypocrisy...

That.

Time to recap --

(1) Legal prostitution is inherently destructive to families, by creating a State-sanctioned outlet for men (and women) to stray from their spouses. "What happens here, stays here."

(2) Legal prostitution, no differently than illegal prostitution, finances organized crime.

(3) Prostitution involves the deliberate severing of the physical act of sex from the relational one, and turns it into a commercial transaction, like picking up a pack of cigarettes -- this hardens and coarsens people and damages them for future relationships. Some people would choose this anyway, commercial or not, but that damages them from a relationship status. Why encourage this with State sanction?

(4) Three kinds of people go into prostitution -- (i) those who have screwed-up wiring and have already broken the physical act from the relationship, (ii) those who are the victims of human trafficking (and yes, that does happen here in the USA), and (iii) those who, through past physical abuse, drug addiction or other emotional damage, think they have no alternatives but to sell their bodies. Let's help them out by using their bodies as commercial commodities. Hey, the State can make some good money off their backs.

For not all, but many prostitutes, their lives are LITERALLY enslaved. Even right here in the US of A.

The United States of America is principally a transit and destination country for trafficking in persons. It is estimated that 14,500 to 17,500 people, primarily women and children, are trafficked to the U.S. annually.

...

The U.S. Department of State began monitoring trafficking in persons in 1994, when the issue began to be covered in the Department’s Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Originally, coverage focused on trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes. The report coverage has broadened over the years, and U.S. embassies worldwide now routinely monitor and report on cases of trafficking in men, women, and children for all forms of forced labor, including agriculture, domestic service, construction work, and sweatshops, as well as trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation.

Human Trafficking -- U.S. (http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/united_states_of_america)

The vast majority of women in prostitution don’t want to be there. Few seek it out or choose it, and most are desperate to leave it. A 2003 study first published in the scientific Journal of Trauma Practice found that 89 percent of women in prostitution want to escape.[1] And children are also trapped in prostitution—despite the fact that international covenants and protocols impose upon state parties an obligation to criminalize the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

Few activities are as brutal and damaging to people as prostitution. Field research in nine countries concluded that 60-75 percent of
women in prostitution were raped, 70-95 percent were physically assaulted, and 68 percent met the criteria for post traumatic stress disorder in the same range as treatment-seeking combat veterans

United States Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38790.htm)

(sarcasm on) We should take the libertarian view: Slavery is about freedom of contract and State's rights. People should be allowed to keep the slaves they bought fair and square. And if some people willingly sign up for indentured servitude, there's nothing wrong with it. Who are we to judge? Besides, if we tax the slave-markets, the State can make some good money and the state can compassionately regulate the industry to make sure the slaves aren't mistreated.(sarcasm off)

(5) Condoms don't guarantee the prevention of Venereal Disease. Someone who is having sex with strangers, day in, day out, is much more likely to fall victim to VD. Many "clients" who want to use strangers for their sexual gratification are not necessarily particular in their sexual practices -- many of them are likely to be carriers. Commercializing intimacy is inherently a risky behavior -- anyone who has donated blood knows that prostitution or seeing prostitutes (legally or not) instantly disqualifies you because of the risk that you would be a disease-carrier.

All of the above are civil reasons not related to any faith to oppose the legalization of prostitution.

(6) applies to Christians: God made Himself clear. Don't do it.

Finally, and this is directed specifically to the thread-starter, TR: Ask yourself where William Wilberforce would be on this issue, and why.

[DoctorDoom]

:thumbup: :thumbup:

[Kathy30]

Of course morality should be imposed on the rest of society! What we call morals are really a set of rules that we all agree to live by in order to create a pleasant living environment for all. That means we don't get to create our own morality. If someone does not like the morals where they are, they are absolutely free to find someplace else that shares their same values. Someone is going to impose their morals on someone else. If a person believes that wearing a thong and pasties in public is not immoral, and it is beneficial for everyone sees them in said thong and pasties, they are effectively imposing that morality on everyone else including others who may not believe in that particular morality.

[PrezLeefun]

:thumbup: :thumbup:

You're relieved he saved you the time. :biggrin:

[ThomasMore]

The justification I keep reading for legalizing prostitution is this:

"Pornography and strip clubs are legal. So prostitution should be legal."

SHOULD PORNOGRAPHY AND STRIP CLUBS BE LEGAL? What do they offer to society except deviancies and destruction similar to prostitution?

Porn and strip clubs once were decidedly fringe elements. They have been mainstreamed -- we have defined deviancy down.

As Hugh Hefner wrote in The Playboy Philosophy (http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/1210almanac.htm),

If a man has a right to find God in his own way, he has a right to go to the devil in his own way also. It sometimes happens that the man most other men would agree is surely going to the devil has instead discovered a new truth that is leading him away from established thought and tradition to a better way. In time these other men will understand and follow. ...

The argument that there is inconsistency between porn laws and prostitution laws is being used to bootstrap prostitution in and further define deviancy down. Why don't we apply the same argument to address past deviancies which are now mainstreamed?

Even LDG, who abhors Big Al's (and as an Illinois resident living over 150 miles away, I have heard of it), apparently thinks that it is OK that it is a legal business, therefore so should prostitution. There is no reason to legalize either.

To those who think strip clubs are OK, look into the effects that they have on most of the women (or men) who work there. Usually young, they make a lot of money. Most either have severe drug problems to begin with, or develop them while working there. Many wind up with children out of wedlock. Many wind up beaten or abused. Some wind up in prostitution. Even girls who are attracted by the money but have few other problems wind up with ruined lives.

[Lazarus]

The crux of the issue is the obsequious pandering to the lowest, vilest elements of society, and the attacks on anyone who protests about it. And it happens incrementally, one "only" at a time.... etc...etc...:claps:

(1) Legal prostitution is inherently destructive to families...
(2) Legal prostitution..finances organized crime.

(3) Prostitution involves the deliberate severing of the physical act of sex from the relational one, and turns it into a commercial transaction...

etc...etc... including especially,
(6) applies to Christians: God make Himself clear. Don't do it.And in the same context, why then should we promote it or enable it or sanction it or validate it?

Of course morality should be imposed on the rest of society! What we call morals are really a set of rules that we all agree to live by in order to create a pleasant living environment for all. That means we don't get to create our own morality. If someone does not like the morals where they are, they are absolutely free to find someplace else that shares their same values. Someone is going to impose their morals on someone else. If a person believes that wearing a thong and pasties in public is not immoral, and it is beneficial for everyone sees them in said thong and pasties, they are effectively imposing that morality on everyone else including others who may not believe in that particular morality.Excellent observation!:claps:

[jayson]

I don't want my kids to know about prostitution, but there are a lot of things I don't want them around.

Sounds like a bad plan to me. Kids are going to find out about sex and prostitution and drugs when they get around other kids anyway... I'd think it would be best if you beat the other kids to the punch and told the kid the hard facts before he gets the wrong ideas in his head.

That's how kids end up thinking you don't need to wear condoms if it's your first time, or girls jumping after having sex will stop the sperm from impregnating them...

[PrezLeefun]

I love the tags I added to this thread.

[Suzie]

Sounds like a bad plan to me. Kids are going to find out about sex and prostitution and drugs when they get around other kids anyway... I'd think it would be best if you beat the other kids to the punch and told the kid the hard facts before he gets the wrong ideas in his head.

That's how kids end up thinking you don't need to wear condoms if it's your first time, or girls jumping after having sex will stop the sperm from impregnating them...

Sex and prostitution are 2 different things. You can teach them what the only right way to have sex is and what happens when you do, and let them know anything else they find out there that involves sex that isn't that is wrong.

[Lazarus]

And another question that has not been raised in this thread... What happens when the whores become pregnant... Let's not pretend that it doesn't happen with a degree of regularity... One wonders what the fate of those embryos realisticly will be...

For those here who take the abortion issue seriously, I'll leave that one hanging in the air for consideration...

[PrezLeefun]

^^Good point.

[Lazarus]

Sex and prostitution are 2 different things. You can teach them what the only right way to have sex is and what happens when you do, and let them know anything else they find out there that involves sex that isn't that is wrong.:claps:You see, there still are some here who don't subscribe to the concept that "It takes a village to raise a child"... Some people still adhere to the old idea that the rearing of children is the sovereign providence of the parents...

[garlicguy]

Compromising with the ungodly is NEVER just a little.

Once upon a time, a company was selling gallon jugs of pure spring water. To save money, it decided to replace one drop of water with raw sewage in each gallon of water. "It is only a little compromise," the company reasoned. "No one would be likely to taste it and it certainly wouldn't hurt anyone." So, for a while it sold gallon jugs of water with one drop of sewage. No one was affected by the change.

After a while, the company added another drop. "It's only a one-drop change, and nobody noticed the first one," they rationalized. And, nobody noticed the second one. Or the third or fourth or fifth or tenth one, each one being only a one-drop change that the people accepted because it was only a very slight change over time.

When the company was adding twenty drops, sensitive people began to experience adverse effects, and said, "It's the water. There's something wrong with it."
"Don't be absurd," the majority replied. "We all drink it and it's not affecting us."

And, over time the number of drops went up to thirty and forty and fifty, one drop of sewage at a time, and people didn't notice the one-drop change, even when more and more people were experiencing adverse reactions.

And a group of those who were sensitive to the pollution united and told the people, "We KNOW there is something wrong with this water. It's making us ill and it certainly cannot be good for anyone."
"Will you fanatical whiners PLEASE shut up? There's nothing wrong with the water."

And then someone in the group found in a back room several bottles of the original pure spring water. He tasted it and said, "There IS something different with our water." Taking the jugs with them, they went to the people and said, "Taste this, and see what we mean."

They handed out glasses of the pure water, and the people spat it out and said, "This is disgusting. What were they selling us back then?" With that, they destroyed the pure water, drove out the group from their midst, and went back to drinking their sewage.

When society becomes accustomed to the slow, stealthy infusion of evil, there comes a time when those who point out the evil are decried as zealots for standing for what is right and good. A society that abandons the absolutes of right and wrong is left with nothing on which to base its value judgments, and is at the mercy of whatever ephemeral standard is in vogue. Inevitably, those who cite the original standards are dismissed as fools or assailed as meddling fanatics.

No nation or culture or civilization has turned its back on God's eternal, immutable standards of right and wrong and as a result improved itself. Ours won't be the first.

WOW! Doc, you just managed to accurately describe the entire Governmental and Political landscape of these United States without even trying....

Maybe we should start referring to the Politicos as "legal prostitutes"?

[Lazarus]

...Maybe we should start referring to the Politicos as "legal prostitutes"?I thought we were already...:biggrin:

[jayson]

And another question that has not been raised in this thread... What happens when the whores become pregnant... Let's not pretend that it doesn't happen with a degree of regularity... One wonders what the fate of those embryos realisticly will be...

What happens when illegal whores get knocked up now? The exact same. I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make...

[Trance]

What happens when illegal whores get knocked up now? The exact same. I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make...


I believe (and please correct me, if I am mistaken), but when a child is born in the US he/she is an automatic citizen, regardless if his parents are citizens or not.

[Neil Peart]

I believe (and please correct me, if I am mistaken), but when a child is born in the US he/she is an automatic citizen, regardless if his parents are citizens or not.He's not referring to illegal aliens.

[jayson]

He's not referring to illegal aliens.

:yeahthat: ... again.

:lol:

[DesertFox]

Lazarus:
Since some here have so vehemantly [sic] argued that Prostitution [sic] is amoral, and is strictly a legal question, once they have their way and it is leaglaized [sic], one wonders why they would then argue that it should be kept out of residential neighborhoods - kept in the redlight disctricts - hidden from the kiddies, and not mentioned in polite society... And yet polite society doesn't mind collecting tax revenues from it...

If its [sic] strictly amoral, why hide it away? Is it not unlike the milkman and the neighborhood grocery store? Afterall, they sell wine and cigarettes but are prohibited from selling them to children...

So its [sic] amoral, yet for some inexplicable reason we're gonna hide the brothels away from the kiddies, lest they see the exteriors of these buildings and know what goes on inside, but we're not gonna miss the opportunity to collect tax revenue from it... There was time in our culture when that kind of policy was defined as hypocracy [sic]...You need to give up sarcasm, Laz. You don't know enough grammar to carry it off and end up making a joke of things you didn't mean to make jokes of.

Feel free to attribute to me what I said. What you cannot do is attribute to me things I did not say.

Nothing inexplicable about hiding the seedy side of life from kiddies. We protect kids from all manner of things that we know they'll find out in their own time. Nothing hypocritical about it. Nor is it clear what your hangup is with taxing something that we keep away from kids. We keep alcohol away from kids and we tax it. We keep tobacco away from kids and we tax it. We keep guns, knives, matches, chain saws, medicines, on and on, away from kids and we tax them.

You probably don't get out much if you don't grasp why you don't want red light districts and/or behavior in residential neighborhoods. Most kids will know about and engage in sex during their lives. But there are proper ages for that sort of thing, and proper times and places. Childhood isn't the age or time, and residential areas aren't the places.

If you seriously think milkmen and grocery stores are amoral, you don't have much to contribute to this discussion.

[DesertFox]

Doc:
A society can be defined by what it tolerates. And America tolerates everything but God and His lawsI understand where you're coming from, but America of the Founders tolerated redlight districts. They were, as I implied earlier, the parts of town that weren't talked about in polite society.

[DesertFox]

Lazarus:
some here have aggresively argued that this is NOT a question of morality - that morality should be kept in the mind of the individual and has no place being imposed on the rest of society...First: Everybody here knows whom you mean. You can cease referring to me in the third person.

Second: I didn't say what you are attributing to me. I said nothing about morality being kept in the mind of the individual and having no place being imposed on the rest of society. You are lying. This you cannot do. Knock it off.

Lazarus:
So I fail to see the logic when those very same people suggest that a thing that they have defined as not a moral issue, should be tucked away out of the sight of kiddies and polite society - It do seem to me to be proposing a double standard...I see you don't know history or literature. What I'm proposing is the way prostitution was handled in America of the Founders. A famous scene from Gone with the Wind is based entirely on this kind of handling of prostitution. Not just prosties, but any "fallen" woman who engaged in sex outside marriage, were shunned by polite society. Much of the canonical literature of mankind deals with just this theme: Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, Goethe's Elective Affinities, Hawthorne's The Scarlett Letter, on and on.

I don't understand how it's a double standard. We have one standard for kids of five, another for kids of ten, another for teens, still another for young adults, yet another for older people. The law itself recognizes the age of majority, so that minors are handled differently from adults. What you call a double standard is simple recognition that not all people are at the same stage of life, not all people are alike in key ways, and so forth.

Surely you knew this, Lazarus? Are you honestly walking around thinking that everyone plays by exactly the same standards, rules and laws? Is that your problem with my common sense approach to the issue of prostitution, that you just don't get the way the world operates? Is that it? Or are you just being contentious because you like to be contentious?

To be sure, contention is no problem; but your sarcasm and tone make no sense "buttressed" by your ignorance.

[The_Elucidator]

What happens when illegal whores get knocked up now? The exact same. I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make...

I believe his point is that one immoral act could lead to a second immoral act, abortion. Just a guess, but I'm sure pimps don't allow 9 months of down time followed by free child care and medical benefits when a trip to "Planned Parenthood" will do the trick... (pun intended this time)

[DoctorDoom]

Doc:
A society can be defined by what it tolerates. And America tolerates everything but God and His lawsI understand where you're coming from, but America of the Founders tolerated redlight districts. They were, as I implied earlier, the parts of town that weren't talked about in polite society.You'll note that I did not refer to whoring in the quote, but rather to the totality of what a society tolerates (or promotes) once it has rejected God's law.

Whoredom is a small part of the degeneration of post-Christian America.

• Our children are f**king other children.
• Our children are HAVING other children.
• Our children are aborting our grandchildren without our knowledge.
• Schools are handing out condoms in the 5th grade.
• We have elevated pornography to 1A-protected speech, but first-graders cannot stage a Christmas pageant.
• We have taxpayers underwriting filth that's called "art", but creches in public parks are "offensive" and must be removed.
• We have perverts marching naked in the streets expressing pride in their perversion.
• We have perverts teaching their perversion in our schools.
• We have school libraries where "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" are on the shelves, but the Bible is banned.
• We have Christians being mocked, attacked and arrested for protesting public perversion.
• We have "music" with lyrics that glorify promiscuous ses. drug abuse, hatred, violence and murder.
• We have prime-time TV programming that isn't fit for adults, let alone children.
• We have movies that revel in naked groping and gutter language.
• We have cable, satellites, DVDs and the Internet pumping sewage into the homes that at one time was confined to 8-MM film strips projected on bedsheets.
• We have radio programming that uses foul words as punctuation.

On and on the list goes. And every bit of it is the result of incrementalism, undermining the moral foundations of America one "only" at a time.

What we're seeing is a nation on the verge of self-destruction. And that is what I referred to when I wrote, "A society can be defined by what it tolerates. And America tolerates everything but God and His laws."

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:claps: Absolutely, Doc! I completely agree. :thumb:

[ThomasMore]

THAT

[DesertFox]

What we're seeing is a nation on the verge of self-destruction. And that is what I referred to when I wrote, "A society can be defined by what it tolerates. And America tolerates everything but God and His laws."Thanks for clarifying. Given the the thread topic and the exchanges in it, I didn't know you were broadening the lens.

I agree that we're on the verge of some mighty interesting times, but I think the good guys are going to win.

[The_Elucidator]

Thanks for clarifying. Given the the thread topic and the exchanges in it, I didn't know you were broadening the lens.

I agree that we're on the verge of some mighty interesting times, but I think the good guys are going to win.

Fox, I don't know if Doc was broadening the lens or just making the point, that if everything in his post is tolerated, why should we expect anything less with prostitution. That's how I read it.

[DesertFox]

Luc, the thread's about prostitution. The lens was broadened to take in a bunch of other stuff that isn't prostitution. I have demonstrated that prostitution has existed within and alongside the rest of society since the days America was founded. And before.

It wasn't prostitution that led America to where she is today, but a concerted attack on our institutions by Leftists. This has been going on since 1905 when Antonio Gramsci, noted Italian Communist, said that for Communism to triumph it was going to have to take over the institutions of education. That has happened, and not just here but throughout Western Europe.

[Lazarus]

What happens when illegal whores get knocked up now? The exact same. I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make...Valid question... My point is, with legalized prostitution, we will see an increase in men (and women, it seems these days) availing themselves of those services since all legal consequances, and in some circles, moral consequences, are removed... And with the inceased activity comes an increase in pregnancies among prostitutes... And an equivilent increase in abortions...

As I understand it, there are members of this board who are concerned with abortion and its propogation as a practice in this country...
Legalized Protitution = Increased Protitution = Increase in the occurances of abortions... That was my point...

Just an additional "benefit" of government sanctioned evil...

[DesertFox]

I don't think (and that's all it is, my opinion) legalizing it will increase it. The call girl racket is where much prostitution has always taken place, and it's always been kept discretely out of sight. Hookers on the streets are the drug abusers, the sex slaves, the mentally handicapped, and that sort.

What we've seen recently in Phoenix is a big expansion of the massage parlor racket, which is a form of call girl. Some of these places actually do just massage, but many are prostitution rings. IF there is growth in prostitution I would expect to see it here. More on this below.

I suspect few members of this board are personally familiar with the seedier side of life in America. The best academic source by far is Camille Paglia, both her magnum opus Sexual Personae and her second book, Vamps and Tramps. Though I've never used a prostie, I have looked into these things. I've talked with hookers about their job, both in America and in Latin America. You seldom see classy-looking women hooking on the streets; they go for the call girl side, and just looking at them and judging by the way they carry themselves -- proudly, almost demurely -- you'd never guess they sell themselves.

Then there are the "working girls," somewhere between the "classy" call girls and the slutty hookers. These, too, are girls on call. They can't charge as much as the higher priced whores because they're not as good looking, or don't know how to carry it off, or whatever. These gals are to the middle class and lower middle class what the high priced call girls are to the wealthy. They are where most prostitution occurs, and you never know they're there unless you know how to look or find out by accident. Most do prostitution for a few years, get a nest egg, buy a house, find a guy, marry, have kids and nobody in their new life ever finds out about their old life. I know of an older woman who has done this since her divorce; it keeps her grandkids well dressed and her daughter from having to work.

This kind of prostitution will neither increase nor decrease, no matter what laws are passed, because these women do want to fit in with middle class mores.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

(sarcasm on)We should take the libertarian view: Slavery is about freedom of contract and State's rights. People should be allowed to keep the slaves they bought fair and square. And if some people willingly sign up for indentured servitude, there's nothing wrong with it. Who are we to judge? Besides, if we tax the slave-markets, the State can make some good money and the state can compassionately regulate the industry to make sure the slaves aren't mistreated.(sarcasm off)
I've pointed this out before myself. It's one of the gaping holes in libertarian logic which, disturbingly, reduces people to nothing more than property. It's things like this which led me to the undeniable conclusion that libretardianism is the leftist social agenda being deceptively repackaged and marketed to conservatives with pseudo right-wing sophistry.

Something very crucial is missing from the equation of those who claim to be conservative, yet keep reaching the same outcome as the far left. The entire leftist social agenda is now being advanced by those claiming to champion the constitution while endorsing things it never protected.

Many libretardians it seems would see America reduced to a nation of Godless sexual miscreants who murder their own babies and kill off the weak. All under the specious pretexts of preserving property rights and Republican principles. When you expose their lunacy as not truly derived from founding era philosophy they seek to discredit or circumvent the authorities on such matters with no less zeal than the Dems.

I've come to see libretardians as corrupted conservatives who can't bring themselves to admit they've been led astray. The left pushes homosexuality and abortion. They remedy this ideological identity crisis by simply justifying these practices as "property rights" and in the interest of "smaller government," and viola, suddenly leftist platforms become "conservative" platforms. Now they can continue to call themselves conservatives and sleep at night.

Finally, and this is directed specifically to the thread-starter, TR: Ask yourself where William Wilberforce would be on this issue, and why.
I originally was going to ask him what he thought was the catalyst for abolishing slavery in England in response to his assertion that 'his religious convictions shouldn't be the basis for banning something.' I knew it would be above his head however, and removed it, opting instead to provide American examples (which, unfortunately, I fear still went well over his head).

They call for my banning for no more reason than that I oppose filth. What a joke. I have dared to speak out against wickedness and offended the PC sensitivities of those who coddle sodomites. How insensitive of me. I see them pointing out the mistakes of others, not because they have any genuine interest in preserving that which is good, but solely because it serves to justify their own immorality (or complicity with such). All the while acting like expecting men not to screw each other and sleep with women is demanding "perfection." How "self righteous" of me not to take a dip in another man's poo from time to time.

They're no less prone than the left to cite moral deterioration as justification for allowing more of the same. I used to point this out with marriage. The left often cite divorce rates in defense of homosexual marriage. Yet the rate of divorce today is a direct result of the left pushing promiscuity, easy divorce, etc. It's always the same with them. We should allow tedo (homosexuals) to sh*t on the carpet (marriage) because we have allowed Bob (heterosexuals) to piss on it. When the solution is not to allow homosexuals to marry but to address and stifle promiscuity and baseless divorce.

As both you and Doc have wonderfully illustrated society is, through this vile reasoning, led one more rung at a time down the ladder to hell.

[TeenageRepublican]

I've pointed this out before myself. It's one of the gaping holes in libertarian logic which, disturbingly, reduces people to nothing more than property. It's things like this which led me to the undeniable conclusion that libretardianism is the leftist social agenda being deceptively repackaged and marketed to conservatives with pseudo right-wing sophistry.

Something very crucial is missing from the equation of those who claim to be conservative, yet keep reaching the same outcome as the far left. The entire leftist social agenda is now being advanced by those claiming to champion the constitution while endorsing things it never protected.

Many libretardians it seems would see America reduced to a nation of Godless sexual miscreants who murder their own babies and kill off the weak. All under the specious pretexts of preserving property rights and Republican principles. When you expose their lunacy as not truly derived from founding era philosophy they seek to discredit or circumvent the authorities on such matters with no less zeal than the Dems.

So now I support the killing of innocent children?
There are several different branches of libertarianism. I consider myself a Paleolibertarian. That's a libertarian that's pro-life and is socially conservative. We just believe that the state has a right to define the Constitution differently than the other states.


I've come to see libretardians as corrupted conservatives who can't bring themselves to admit they've been led astray. The left pushes homosexuality and abortion. They remedy this ideological identity crisis by simply justifying these practices as "property rights" and in the interest of "smaller government," and viola, suddenly leftist platforms become "conservative" platforms. Now they can continue to call themselves conservatives and sleep at night.


I don't think that homosexuality and abortion should be pushed on to people, I think it should all be up to the states.


I originally was going to ask him what he thought was the catalyst for abolishing slavery in England in response to his assertion that 'his religious convictions shouldn't be the basis for banning something.' I knew it would be above his head however, and removed it, opting instead to provide American examples (which, unfortunately, I fear still went well over his head).


Slavery was wrong and it clearly affected everyone else. In most cases, it ended in murder. Abortion is murder, so I support a banning for it.

They call for my banning for no more reason than that I oppose filth. What a joke. I have dared to speak out against wickedness and offended the PC sensitivities of those who coddle sodomites. How insensitive of me. I see them pointing out the mistakes of others, not because they have any genuine interest in preserving that which is good, but solely because it serves to justify their own immorality (or complicity with such). All the while acting like expecting men not to screw each other and sleep with women is demanding "perfection." How "self righteous" of me not to take a dip in another man's poo from time to time.

I call for your banning because you go around accusing other people of things they're not actually doing without apology.
They're no less prone than the left to cite moral deterioration as justification for allowing more of the same. I used to point this out with marriage. The left often cite divorce rates in defense of homosexual marriage. Yet the rate of divorce today is a direct result of the left pushing promiscuity, easy divorce, etc. It's always the same with them. We should allow tedo (homosexuals) to sh*t on the carpet (marriage) because we have allowed Bob (heterosexuals) to piss on it. When the solution is not to allow homosexuals to marry but to address and stifle promiscuity and baseless divorce.

As both you and Doc have wonderfully illustrated society is, through this vile reasoning, led one more rung at a time down the ladder to hell.


You are jumping from subject to subject. The topic was legalized prostitution, not homosexual marriage.
TM and Doc are presenting their beliefs in a respectful manner and aren't accusing anyone of believing something without actually knowing for sure if the person actually believes it.

[Trovalor]

This is one of those subjects that hits a foul chord with me. Prostitution should be a capitol offense and as such, prostitutes as well as their pimps should be shot. No Jury, No Plea Bargaining, if you are a prostitute, you get shot. (I have this view for any repeat capitol offender) The reason for my way of thinking like this is I view them as predators, they know that one of the easiest ways into a guys (or gals) wallet is to prey upon the lustful impulses of those people. I put them into the same cesspool as child molesters and serial rapists.


So no, I do not believe prostitution should be legalized.

[Banana]

This is one of those subjects that hits a foul chord with me. Prostitution should be a capitol offense and as such, prostitutes as well as their pimps should be shot. No Jury, No Plea Bargaining, if you are a prostitute, you get shot. (I have this view for any repeat capitol offender) The reason for my way of thinking like this is I view them as predators, they know that one of the easiest ways into a guys (or gals) wallet is to prey upon the lustful impulses of those people. I put them into the same cesspool as child molesters and serial rapists.


So no, I do not believe prostitution should be legalized.

Sounds like you would really get along with these guys in Afghanistan called the Taliban. They like to shoot people for things like committing adultery.

http://www.afghaninjustice.com/TalibanShootWomenInKabul.jpg

You really need to check the dictionary for the definition of the words 'freedom' and 'liberty'. That is if you even claim to believe in them.

[DoctorDoom]

Sounds like you would really get along with these guys in Afghanistan called the Taliban. They like to shoot people for things like committing adultery.Evidently, sarcasm is ineffective with you.

[Banana]

Evidently, sarcasm is ineffective with you.

Perhaps I did take it the wrong way and if so, I apologise.

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to read from the written word and it sounded to me like he was being serious.

[Kathy30]

Let's legalize prostitution, tax it and the goverment can run the brothels as kind of a big daddy pimp.

Let's legalize drugs, and pass anti discrimination laws to protect the addicts, tax it and the government can become the world's largest drug dealer.

Let's legalize gay "rights" and force religious day care centers to hire guys with beards and dresses.

How much of a toilet do you want to live in before you want a big flush more than anything else?

Legislating immorality has a huge side effect and that is to alienate and isolate individual citizens. Making friends is more difficult, trusting neighbors, coworkers and business associates is no longer a given. Who you select for your children's friends now requires a more intensive investigation. The culture is no longer open and welcoming, but closed and suspicious. Legislating immorality on the majority who reject it has an effect. If people cannot stop the government from imposing their accepted level of immorality, they can stop it as much as possible from impacting their own lives and they do.

Why did the Swedes close Needle Park? Why did Amsterdam close their famous red light district? Why did the Netherlands start closing and limiting their cannibis cafes?

The people just got tired of swimming in that toilet with all the turds.

[DesertFox]

Let's just generalize all reasonable distinctions right out of existence and move straight into a very moral, and very totalitarian, Puritanism. Anybody who does something we don't like, we'll accuse him of being a turd and flush his ass right on down the toilet.

[Trovalor]

Sounds like you would really get along with these guys in Afghanistan called the Taliban. They like to shoot people for things like committing adultery.

You really need to check the dictionary for the definition of the words 'freedom' and 'liberty'. That is if you even claim to believe in them.

As Doc was kind enough to point out, I was being sarcastic in my extremist tone. Although I had hoped it would point out the strong distaste I have for the prostitution perversion profession. In many places its as bad as drugs, if not worse, and my opinion on both is that if your caught doing it, you should be getting hit with more than a slap on the wrist.

Evidently, sarcasm is ineffective with you.Go easy on him, not everyone can understand the subtle nuances of mimicking (mocking?) Libspeak (how many Libtards have said Bush should be shot and killed without a trial, etc..?).

[Trovalor]

Let's just generalize all reasonable distinctions right out of existence and move straight into a very moral, and very totalitarian, Puritanism. Anybody who does something we don't like, we'll accuse him of being a turd and flush his ass right on down the toilet.

Who sets the standard of what we like and don't like for accusing someone of being a turd to be flushed? Because if its Ted Kennedy or any of his ilk, I'll save them the wrist strain and move on my own accord.

[Kathy30]

Successful cultures share a set of values that the social contract says they all abide by. These cultures flourish. There are bonds and underpinnings of general trust. The further a culture gets from shared values, the weaker it is. Anyone who finds that living under that social contract is free to go someplace else and live in a culture where the values are more to their liking. Freedom doesn't mean anarchy although some think that it does. Freedom is actually quite confining. Freedom carries with it an enormous personal requirement of reponsibility.

[DesertFox]

Shared values matter in social cohesion, but not the sort of values you're talking about. The social contract is different in different places.

The societies with the highest levels of shared values on earth today are probably the Islamist ones. I would also argue that, far from being strong because of those shared values, those societies are weak. They are held together, not by their shared values, but by the sheer force of a leadership that wants everyone to do exactly as told.

The whole secret of American success has been a political system that allows different rather than shared religious values. What makes a society successful aren't religious values, but rather values that maximize the best that is within people. It so happens that Christian values do that -- to a point. Beyond that point, as with the Puritans, even Christian values suffocate the human spirit.

[DesertFox]

Who sets the standard of what we like and don't like for accusing someone of being a turd to be flushed?That is precisely what we're discussing. What are these standards, and who decides them?

[Kathy30]

Who sets these standards?

A whole bunch of people who care what they are. Here, mostly by vote. Secondarily by what you put up with in your own life, your own circle of experience.

[Maggie_T]

(shrug) I don't know why so many people go out of their way to defend prostitution, as if it was something wonderful and noble that elevates the human being. It is the complete opposite.

Oh, don't worry. I'm indifferent to whether it should be legalized or not. My oppinion won't mean chicken shit, so why bother.

But allow me to say that I have nothing but disgust and contempt for the Johnnies who indulge in such a thing, as for the women who indulge in it for sheer profit. There are some cases in which women sadly resort to it, but that's not the point here. As for the eagar beaver 'sophisticates,' who think they are being so deferential and tolerant because they defend one of the worst plagues that has been afflicting humanity since the dawn of time, I regret to say .... well, never mind. I won't say it.

For women, prostitution is degrading beyond belief. For men, well, what respect can you have for someone who can't get it up unless he degrades women? Or men, for that matter? What kind of a loser has to pay to get his jollies? And I don't care whether he pays $20 or $2,000. And for both, prostitution is demeaning and harmful in more ways than one.

The whole thing is pathetic, and even grotesque.

And don't come to me bleating about rights and privacy, do yourselves the last favor.

Anyone who thinks human degradation (for all parties concerned) should be considered a right is in need of some urget help.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

So now I support the killing of innocent children?
Was my post a response to you? No it wasn't.
There are several different branches of libertarianism. I consider myself a Paleolibertarian. That's a libertarian that's pro-life and is socially conservative. We just believe that the state has a right to define the Constitution differently than the other states.
It doesn't matter what you believe. Because it doesn't change the fact the majority of libertarians to which I have spoken (and this might be different for other people) support abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia as a "property right." I've repeatedly said I've even had a couple defend bestiality as such.

I was initially attracted to libertarianism myself. Smaller government? Sounds good. But it wasn't long before I noticed something was missing. Where's the social conservatism guys, I asked? Yeah, I'm down with lower taxes, but where's the reverence for the Christian foundations of our institutions? Where's the morality? I'm all about smaller government, but there strangely seems to be essentially none in your equation, and you seem to spend all of your time fabricating absolute lies about the government having no authority to regulate moral issues... when it's done just that since its inception and for the bulk of American history. Low and behold I found homosexuals supporting queer marriage, baby killers, atheist God-haters telling me that by using Christian morality as a determining factor when I cast my vote I was violating separation of church and state, etc., all calling themselves "conservatives."

Something was seriously wrong. As I studied history to find the truth of my religious heritage (which in part led me back to God) for my debates with leftists, I found the further I went back in American history, the more utterly saturated society and government was with Christianity. I also found that leftists and libertarians were consistently on the same side of certain issues, reaching the same conclusions, merely getting there through a slightly different path of reasoning.

The people claiming to champion the constitution seemed to get it right little more than leftists. When I pointed out serious discrepancies in their ideology with history, and revealed their platform was not in reality substantially derived from traditional founding era principles, they'd either ignore it altogether or would attack me, and even the founders themselves, as tyrannical statists.

One thing became clear. The left wants to require you by law to accept homosexuality. The libertarian, by calling all restrictions against such "big government," wants to require you to accept homosexuality by selling the myth you have no moral, legal, Constitutional authority to prohibit it. Either way the outcome is the same. Filth and obscenity are decriminalized. Neither is historically or constitutionally derived, as the government has always upheld cultural mores, but provided no constitutional protection of homosexuality, abortion, pornography, etc.

I'll never forget some of these nutjobs, like the libertarian who said to me in all seriousness, that the colonists came to America to escape the government supporting Christianity over satanism. When I cited the fact that the first governing compact specifically stated they'd made the voyage here "for the advancement of the Christian faith" he cussed me out, called me a revisionist, and refused to ever answer me again.

If people can't see why such things would leave a seriously bad taste in my mouth for the lot, there's nothing more I can say about it.

Secondly, the Constitution is not to be "redefined" with the passing of time or on a subjective basis. No governing document can maintain authority or relevance if people simply read into it their own subjective interpretations or what has recently become fashionable. The "living breathing" constitution that changes with time, and is to be read without any context or understanding of the circumstances under which it was created, is marxist excrement. In the sense that it was created is the only legitimate sense. The principles do not change. How many times must I point that out to the champions of the Constitution?

I don't think that homosexuality and abortion should be pushed on to people, I think it should all be up to the states.
Yes, yes, this is a noble ideal mate. But the rubber of your good intentions simply doesn't meet the road of reality. The fact is both are being pushed on people, whether by state coercion from the left, or by your group removing all means of opposing it. Neither were rights under our Constitution. They're both heinous corruptions and distortions of its wording and intent. And I say this as someone who once essentially mirrored your own philosophy for both, but after researching it, discovered my arguments for allowing this were erroneous.

In reality, all libertarians are doing is facilitating the advancement of the leftist agenda, as you're busy convincing conservatives they have no moral, legal, or Constitutional authority to oppose the social agenda the left is imposing upon us.

Slavery was wrong and it clearly affected everyone else. In most cases, it ended in murder. Abortion is murder, so I support a banning for it.
Nonsense. If I own a slave, and beat him, or even kill him... how does that effect you? It doesn't. My slave is just property, and not your property, thus it doesn't effect you anymore than my burning my furniture in the fire place. I can do whatever I want with my property (just like a woman can with the property of her body). Who are you to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their property? You're an enemy to property rights!? You tyrannical, big-government, statist pig!!!!

Upon what is your opposition to my owning slaves based? Who are you to judge my belief that I can do with my property as I see fit or impose your morality on me?!

I call for your banning because you go around accusing other people of things they're not actually doing without apology.
I call for your banning (facetiously) for being so woefully hypocritical it's absurd. As soon as you apologize for joining in with the jackasses who accused me of supporting nazi death camps (which was before I was ever not polite to you to my knowledge), I might consider being nicer, but don't hold your breath.

Basically I should be banned because I disagreed with you and wasn't nice to you when I did so. I suppose you'd be calling for me to be fired if we worked together. :rolleyes:

I've not done anything wrong. You support homosexuality and prostitution. I've properly criticized both these practices and your support of them as deplorable. Oppose them personally all you want, but by advocating their legalization, you are supporting them (and to a greater degree than which you oppose them). It's wishy washy and weak IMO. 'I personally oppose cannibalism, but what two consenting adults do behind closed doors doesn't effect me, so I have no basis upon which to demand its criminalization.' :rolleyes:

You are jumping from subject to subject. The topic was legalized prostitution, not homosexual marriage.
My post wasn't a response to you. My comments were meant for the poster to whom it was addressed.
TM and Doc are presenting their beliefs in a respectful manner and aren't accusing anyone of believing something without actually knowing for sure if the person actually believes it.
That's great. TM, Doc, and Luc, are all posters I admire. I respect their opinions and advice. But I didn't accuse you of anything you don't believe to my knowledge. If you're taking points I made in general, or references to someone else, and applying them to yourself, that's your doing and not mine. As already stated my last post was not a response to you.

My responses to you are based on my understanding of your position as put forth. You are supporting prostitution by advocating its legalization. I am criticizing you for such. You don't exonerate yourself for supporting this evil in my eyes simply because you claim to "personally" oppose it.

[DesertFox]

I don't know why so many people go out of their way to defend prostitution, as if it was something wonderful and noble that elevates the human being.Who here is defending prostitution, and who here has even vaguely intimated that it's something wonderful and noble that elevates the human being?

Answers: Nobody, and nobody.

Anyone who thinks human degradation (for all parties concerned) should be considered a right is in need of some urget help.No argument. But what does that have to do with anything in this thread? No one in this thread has even spoken of human degradation until you right now brought it up, and you are the one who says that human degradation is being promoted as a right. How did rights enter into this? and who is promoting human degradation as a right?

M'dear, are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? You're talking about things that haven't even been brought up.

I'm interested to see, though, that you buy into the feminist notion that prostitution degrades a woman. Why do you think that? What is degrading about sex? about coitus? about fornication? about selling sex? What makes it degrading? And don't give me one of those copout things of "If you don't know, I can't tell you." I want an answer to the question. I've seen others talk about sex in the backseat as if it were somehow lesser than sex in a bedroom. I want someone to explain what makes one form of sex degrading, while their own preferred form of it is wonderful and noble and elevates the human being?

This is an interesting question. Please give a serious answer.

[Kathy30]

Shared values matter in social cohesion, but not the sort of values you're talking about. The social contract is different in different places.

The societies with the highest levels of shared values on earth today are probably the Islamist ones. I would also argue that, far from being strong because of those shared values, those societies are weak. They are held together, not by their shared values, but by the sheer force of a leadership that wants everyone to do exactly as told.

The whole secret of American success has been a political system that allows different rather than shared religious values. What makes a society successful aren't religious values, but rather values that maximize the best that is within people. It so happens that Christian values do that -- to a point. Beyond that point, as with the Puritans, even Christian values suffocate the human spirit.

Odd because I normally agree with you. But you are wrong. Islam was a perfectly acceptable and stable culture until it was upset by new values coming in. Western values. If left alone, as it has been for thousands of years, it would be getting along just fine with nothing much to hate and fight against.

We have differences of religion and politics but the unpinnings of those values have always been the same. There are things that we find intolerable. Drug use, prostitution, child abuse are things that we agreed would not be permitted in our culture. There probably are cultures that have agreed that one or more of these things would be permitted or even extolled in their culture. As long as they all agree, it is a stable culture. To drag that baggage into our formerly stable culture will have results that are clearly disastrous on many levels.

[TeenageRepublican]

Was my post a response to you? No it wasn't.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Because it doesn't change the fact the majority of libertarians to which I have spoken (and this might be different for other people) support abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia as a "property right." I've repeatedly said I've even had a couple defend bestiality as such.


This is on a site that anyone can join and this thread is also public. I can join in anytime I want to. In fact, you're responding to a topic which I created for discussion in this thread. I don't see what the big deal is. The moderators who control this board seem to not care at all.
I think you've been talking to left-leaning libertarians. The ones I've met don't even think that.


I was initially attracted to libertarianism myself. Smaller government? Sounds good. But it wasn't long before I noticed something was missing. Where's the social conservatism guys, I asked? Yeah, I'm down with lower taxes, but where's the reverence for the Christian foundations of our institutions? Where's the morality? I'm all about smaller government, but there strangely seems to be essentially none in your equation, and you seem to spend all of your time fabricating absolute lies about the government having no authority to regulate moral issues... when it's done just that since its inception and for the bulk of American history. Low and behold I found homosexuals supporting queer marriage, baby killers, atheist God-haters telling me that by using Christian morality as a determining factor when I cast my vote I was violating separation of church and state, etc., all calling themselves "conservatives."


Have you even studied libertarianism? I've taken the time to. There's several different branches, like the conservative platform, in the libertarian platform. Not all of them support homosexuality, abortion, or hate God. If they did, Christian Libertarianism wouldn't even exist.

Something was seriously wrong. As I studied history to find the truth of my religious heritage (which in part led me back to God) for my debates with leftists, I found the further I went back in American history, the more utterly saturated society and government was with Christianity. I also found that leftists and libertarians were consistently on the same side of certain issues, reaching the same conclusions, merely getting there through a slightly different path of reasoning.

I disagree with CzechPrince and Jayson on the Iraq War and yet I'm still considered libertarian. Libertarians often don't agree on everything other libertarians say. So we don't all reach the same conclusions or stay on the same side of every issue.

The people claiming to champion the constitution seemed to get it right little more than leftists. When I pointed out serious discrepancies in their ideology with history, and revealed their platform was not in reality substantially derived from traditional founding era principles, they'd either ignore it altogether or would attack me, and even the founders themselves, as tyrannical statists.

Everyone has their own definitions of the Constitution. Why should yours be the right one? How can you prove the founding fathers would agree with you?
And the only historical evidence I've seen you provide are quotes.

One thing became clear. The left wants to require you by law to accept homosexuality. The libertarian, by calling all restrictions against such "big government," wants to require you to accept homosexuality by selling the myth you have no moral, legal, Constitutional authority to prohibit it. Either way the outcome is the same. Filth and obscenity are decriminalized. Neither is historically or constitutionally derived, as the government has always upheld cultural mores, but provided no constitutional protection of homosexuality, abortion, pornography, etc.

Again, this isn't about homosexuality. You don't have to accept it, you can protest against it and tell everyone why it's wrong. Just don't expect the government to do that job for you.

I'll never forget some of these nutjobs, like the libertarian who said to me in all seriousness, that the colonists came to America to escape the government supporting Christianity over satanism. When I cited the fact that the first governing compact specifically stated they'd made the voyage here "for the advancement of the Christian faith" he cussed me out, called me a revisionist, and refused to ever answer me again.

They made the voyage here because of religious persecution of the Church of England. Thus the reason why they were called Pilgrims. They no longer were accepted in England, so they trusted God to bring them to a new land.


If people can't see why such things would leave a seriously bad taste in my mouth for the lot, there's nothing more I can say about it.

Secondly, the Constitution is not to be "redefined" with the passing of time or on a subjective basis. No governing document can maintain authority or relevance if people simply read into it their own subjective interpretations or what has recently become fashionable. The "living breathing" constitution that changes with time, and is to be read without any context or understanding of the circumstances under which it was created, is marxist excrement. In the sense that it was created is the only legitimate sense. The principles do not change. How many times must I point that out to the champions of the Constitution?


Yet people all have different definitions of the Constitution. It's called Freedom of Belief. Go figure.


Nonsense. If I own a slave, and beat him, or even kill him... how does that effect you? It doesn't. My slave is just property, and not your property, thus it doesn't effect you anymore than my burning my furniture in the fire place. I can do whatever I want with my property (just like a woman can with the property of her body). Who are you to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their property? You're an enemy to property rights!? You tyrannical, big-government, statist pig!!!!

Where have I ever said that? Slavery was murder and it clearly affected people. Abortion is the same thing. Don't give me that crap.

Upon what is your opposition to my owning slaves based? Who are you to judge my belief that I can do with my property as I see fit or impose your morality on me?!

Because slaves were people too and they had rights as well.



I call for your banning (facetiously) for being so woefully hypocritical it's absurd. As soon as you apologize for joining in with the jackasses who accused me of supporting nazi death camps (which was before I was ever not polite to you to my knowledge), I might consider being nicer, but don't hold your breath.


I didn't say that Nazi comment. Gonzo did. I just told the truth that you did support sending homosexuals to rehab against their will. What's wrong with that?


Basically I should be banned because I disagreed with you and wasn't nice to you when I did so. I suppose you'd be calling for me to be fired if we worked together. :rolleyes:


No, you should be banned because you accuse people of doing things they didn't actually do... without apologizing. You accused CzechPrince of support NAMBLA, when he didn't. You accused me of support abortion, when I don't. You accused me of supporting homosexuality, which I don't. You do hit-and-run posts and rarely ever bother to respond to people who actually challenge you. I'm still waiting for that response in that Egypt thread in the Homosexual Debate.

I've not done anything wrong. You support homosexuality and prostitution. I've properly criticized both these practices and your support of them as deplorable. Oppose them personally all you want, but by advocating their legalization, you are supporting them (and to a greater degree than which you oppose them). It's wishy washy and weak IMO. 'I personally oppose cannibalism, but what two consenting adults do behind closed doors doesn't effect me, so I have no basis upon which to demand its criminalization.' :rolleyes:

Cannibalism does infringe on other people's rights, so that's BS. And again, I don't support homosexuality or homosexual marriage... morally or legally. I oppose liquor morally and yet that's still legal. Should we ban that too?

[DesertFox]

Kathy30:
Odd because I normally agree with you. But you are wrong. Islam was a perfectly acceptable and stable culture until it was upset by new values coming in. Western values. If left alone, as it has been for thousands of years, it would be getting along just fine with nothing much to hate and fight against.No, I'm not wrong. You said shared values make a society stable. I said the society today with prolly the most widely-shared values are the Islamist ones. You didn't argue with that, but instead you now say that something else made those societies unstable in spite of their widely-shared values. That changes the basis of your argument. Not to mention that Islam WAS left alone and went on the march itself, which set up the Crusades against it.

Nor was Islam EVER "perfectly acceptable." This has always been a culture where clitorectomy was accepted, expected and insisted upon by both moms and dads. Where a girl could be (and was) killed to atone for her pervert brother raping her. Where old men could (and did) arrange marriages with young girls. Nothing whatever acceptable about any of that.

We have differences of religion and politics but the unpinnings of those values have always been the same. There are things that we find intolerable. Drug use, prostitution, child abuse are things that we agreed would not be permitted in our culture. This is simply wrong. None of these examples bears up under scrutiny. Except for opium, which still wasn't against the law but was indeed frowned on, drug use is a late-coming thing, something that was never a big issue until the Sixties. Prostitution, as I have demonstrated more than once in this thread, has been outside the pale of polite society but has never been "not permitted" in our culture, instead existing in the shadows and on the edges of society, tolerated so long as it stayed in the redlight districts. Child abuse was permitted for decades and even centuries, if we use any of the modern definitions of child abuse. The term itself is a late comer in political discussion. My dad used to tell about his dad running after him with a 2x4. My mom's mom whipped them with a switch that left welts. All that would today be considered child abuse. I think it's child abuse, too. But nobody thought much about it in those days, and certainly nobody went to jail for abusing his child by taking a 2x4 or a switch to him.

[Kathy30]

Okay, if you want to live in a culture of stoners and whores, I hope you find one. Just don't make the entire US into one.

[DesertFox]

What makes you think I want to live in such a society?

Also, the US is ALREADY such a society and YOU are living in it.

What I'm saying, and have repeatedly said, is that prostitution has been a part of America since before the Founding. If you're truly a conservative, you accept it as a regrettable part of humanity. That is how the Founders looked at it. They didn't even try to stamp it out, but they did keep it over on the edges, just as I've described. Youse who are doing your damnedest to ascribe to me things I've not said or even intimated, are going against the wisdom and example of the Founders.

[Kathy30]

Gosh, I was completely unaware that drugs and prostitution were legal. And here I thought those cops were arresting whores and addicts for being whores and addicts!

Silly me.

[DesertFox]

You are misrepresenting what I said. Not for the first time, either.

It's your fault, not mine, that you don't know the history of drugs or prostitution in this country. Arguing like a woman -- changing the subject, moving the goal posts, exaggerating what I said, pretending I said something I didn't, anything but admit error or make a good faith effort to integrate your thinking with what I'm saying rather than take an antagonistic attitude as you are doing -- is the liberal thing to do.

I'm not here to win an argument. I'm here to try to reason our way toward a deeper understanding of a phenomenon that won't go away. Ascribing to me things I haven't said, or attitudes I don't hold, merely raises the temperature because I WILL strike back. But it's not necessary to go there. I don't like prostitution, either; but I'm doing my best to understand it. That doesn't mean I approve of it. I don't. But it's not going to go away just because we all walk around in a holier-than-thou snit.

This crappy attitude is precisely what people despise about so many Christians. They can't argue, they have to quarrel and get nasty and petty. Odd, because liberals are exactly the same way.

[TeenageRepublican]

What makes you think I want to live in such a society?

Also, the US is ALREADY such a society and YOU are living in it.

What I'm saying, and have repeatedly said, is that prostitution has been a part of America since before the Founding. If you're truly a conservative, you accept it as a regrettable part of humanity. That is how the Founders looked at it. They didn't even try to stamp it out, but they did keep it over on the edges, just as I've described. Youse who are doing your damnedest to ascribe to me things I've not said or even intimated, are going against the wisdom and example of the Founders.

Ditto. :claps:

[Maggie_T]

Who here is defending prostitution, and who here has even vaguely intimated that it's something wonderful and noble that elevates the human being?

Answers: Nobody, and nobody.

Ok, let me start from the beginning. I'm sorry I was not clear. I did not read the whole thread. I was just giving everyone the "benefit of my opinion" (don't I always?) :biggrin: :rolleyes:

In the second place, where in my thread did I say anyone here was defending prostitution? :question:


No argument. But what does that have to do with anything in this thread? No one in this thread has even spoken of human degradation until you right now brought it up, and you are the one who says that human degradation is being promoted as a right. How did rights enter into this? and who is promoting human degradation as a right?

M'dear, are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? You're talking about things that haven't even been brought up.

Er, no. As I said, I did not read the whole thread. I just posted my comment. You know me. I never need an invitation to opine. http://foolstown.com/sm/shy.gif

I'm interested to see, though, that you buy into the feminist notion that prostitution degrades a woman. Why do you think that? What is degrading about sex? about coitus? about fornication? about selling sex? What makes it degrading? And don't give me one of those copout things of "If you don't know, I can't tell you." I want an answer to the question. I've seen others talk about sex in the backseat as if it were somehow lesser than sex in a bedroom. I want someone to explain what makes one form of sex degrading, while their own preferred form of it is wonderful and noble and elevates the human being?

This is an interesting question. Please give a serious answer.

In the first place, don't you DARE call me a feminist, Fox. You should know me better by now. :flame:

As for your question, I don't find sex, or coitus, as you quaintly put it, degrading per se. But yes, I do find selling sex degrading, Fox. Sorry if my opinion does not match yours.

Prostitution is not just wham, bam, thank you, ma'am. More often than not, it involves women having to perform degrading acts that I have no interest in going into. I'm sure someone as worldly as you knows what I mean. I find the fact that a pimp benefitting from money women make by spreading their legs to every Tom, Dick, and Harry ready to pay a measely $20 for it, degrading. Those women are exploited by the pimps they work for. That is just as degrading as slavery is, IMHO. I find slavery degrading.

I believe that sex without love reduces something beautiful to the level of defecation, or passing gas. Or recreational drugs, if you prefer. And I find doing drugs degrading, too.

Prostitution - as pornography - dehumanizes the act of love and turns it into a mere minutes-lasting carnal pleasure. And I find that degrading.

Does than answer your question, dear? Or do you need further clarification?

And DON'T call me a feminist again.

[Livia]

I say legalize it as long as the whores agree to have a big tattoo on their forehead so everyone can know, up front, who/what they are dealing with. I think Johns should have an even bigger tattoo on their foreheads so normal, healthy women know to stay away from them.

Also, whores and johns should not be eligible for Medicare, since they'll contract who-knows-what kind of mutated STD viruses.

I'm hoping the new and mutated STDs means big pharma will come up with expensive designer drugs to cover the symptoms of the icky-poo viruses and will offer a lucrative investment for those of us who invest in medical technology. So, go ahead and spread viru$e$!!!!!!

haha id have to say this made me chuckle as well ^_^

id say legalize it because i think its stupid to to tell 2 consenting adults that they cant have sex money or not...i mean its the same thing pretty much as a man marrying a woman giving her everything she wants jus so she will sleep wit him and there are soooo many other problems in the united states other than prostitution

id have to say i agree wit the whole "not giving them Medicare" i mean come on now...i really dont wanna have to pay for people to be out on the streets whoring it up worse than it already is

[DesertFox]

In the first place, don't you DARE call me a feminist, Fox. You should know me better by now.I didn't. You should know ME better by now.

where in my thread did I say anyone here was defending prostitution? Then why did you mention people defending prostitution? and whence all that silliness about prostitution being something wonderful and noble that elevates the human being? It looks suspiciously like you're just ducking responsibility for your words, Mags.

If you're not, please tell us who said prostitution is something wonderful and noble that elevates the human being? Was it in a magazine article somewhere? That's a very sarcastic thing to say, and if you're not going to stand by what you say, why should anyone take you seriously?

And DON'T call me a feminist again.I never did in the first place, so if I ever do call you that it will be the first time. Kindly look at what I said: I'm interested to see, though, that you buy into the feminist notion that prostitution degrades a woman. How does agreeing with feminists about one thing make you a feminist? I agree with feminists about some things, too, you know: I think men and women should get equal pay for equal work. That's a feminist notion. I'm no feminist but I agree with that feminist notion.

Capiche? :question:

[DesertFox]

Well, I've read all 323 posts (prior to this one) and I still stand by my original vote. Yes, prostitution should be legalized. At least, until someone can persuade me with something besides their personal opinion.

[Maggie_T]

I didn't. You should know ME better by now.

Not if you start acting like someone else.

Then why did you mention people defending prostitution? and whence all that silliness about prostitution being something wonderful and noble that elevates the human being? It looks suspiciously like you're just ducking responsibility for your words, Mags.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Didn't you read the part of my post where I said I did not read the whole thread, and how I was just giving my free-lance opinion on the whole thing?

As for the part where I say that some people say that prostitution is a wonderful thing, OBVIOUSLY I was just being sarcastic. Now don't tell me you never heard me being sarcastic before. :rolleyes:

If you're not, please tell us who said prostitution is something wonderful and noble that elevates the human being? Was it in a magazine article somewhere? That's a very sarcastic thing to say, and if you're not going to stand by what you say, why should anyone take you seriously?

Of course, I was being sarcastic. When am I not sarcastic. :rolleyes:

Honey, methinks you do protest too much. Since I confessed that I did not read the whole thread, there's not much chance that I could have been referring to anyone in this thread, now is there? I was just referring to some people who advocate the legalization of prostitution basing is on the spurious idea that prostitution is a private thing, a social necessity, yadda, yadda, yadda. Before I read your last post on this thread, I had NO idea you were for legalizing the blight.

The world does not revolve around you, sweetie. I was talking about other kind of people. Again, I did not read the whole thread, therefore, my comment could hardly have been directed at you.

It looks suspiciously like you're being a bit too touchy, Fox.

How does agreeing with feminists about one thing make you a feminist? I agree with feminists about some things, too, you know: I think men and women should get equal pay for equal work. That's a feminist notion. I'm no feminist but I agree with that feminist notion.

That's simply basic justice and has nothing to do with feminism. And I'm surprised to hear you fell for that canard.

In the 70s femenists pretended to be against prostitution because it was just another way of getting at the Evil White Male, not because - as they claimed - they were in any way worried about it being degrading to women. Proof of that is that when the ladies of the night told feminists to back off and stop interfering with "business," the hypocritical harridans immediately retreated into a cornern, apologizing. If they had REALLY been concerned about women being exploited and degraded, they would have stuck to their weapons, and tried to redeem prostitutes. Instead, ther backpedaled fast and shut up (for once). It was the most pathetic perfomance I ever witenessed in my life, and killed my respect for the movement then and there.

I was offended because you put my honest and sincere opinion of prostitution on the same level as that of those bloody hypocrites. How could I not be offended?

Do I call you a liberal just because you want to legalize prostitution, even though I know they would agree with you 100%? I don't.

You put your foot in your mouth, Fox. No big deal. We all do, now and then.

Now let's see if you are man enough to admit it.

Capiche? :question:

That's capisce, dear. Not capiche. An Italian reading that wouldn't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Don't mention it. I like to educate people.

[TeenageRepublican]

Didn't the US government send over a prostitute to a German dictator to get information during WW1? (or was it WW2?)

[Gonzo67]

Come on you two... can't we all just get along?

What do ya say we just get our selves a few hookers and some beer and work this out like adults :)

:evilgrin:

Maggs... I'll spring for a "Fabioesque" man-whore for ya hon... we can work this out :)

[DesertFox]

:roar: What do ya say we just get our selves a few hookers and some beer and work this out like adults :rotflmbo:

[DesertFox]

Mags and I periodically go round and round. We're too much alike, methinks. But I've been secretly in love with her forever.

[Maggie_T]

Come on you two... can't we all just get along?

What do ya say we just get our selves a few hookers and some beer and work this out like adults :)

:evilgrin:

Maggs... I'll spring for a "Fabioesque" man-whore for ya hon... we can work this out :)

Make that a Gibsonesque man-whore. I never like Fabio. :rotflmbo: :rolleyes:

[Maggie_T]

Mags and I periodically go round and round. We're too much alike, methinks. But I've been secretly in love with her forever.

That's a relief. I hate to think how you'd treat me if you hated me.

[Gonzo67]

Well Mags, I did my best. I put in a call to Mel, but he was busy... something about a Fifth of Jack and "those dirty Jews again..." I didn't catch it all. He was on his cell phone.

I tried to find ya one that LOOKED a bit like Mel, this was the best I could get ya on such short notice though...

http://webpages.charter.net/gonzo367/manwhore.jpg

[Maggie_T]

:lol:

Try again, love. That thing won't do. He looks too much like a whore, and not enough like a man.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

This is on a site that anyone can join and this thread is also public. I can join in anytime I want to. In fact, you're responding to a topic which I created for discussion in this thread. I don't see what the big deal is. The moderators who control this board seem to not care at all.
Good grief. Yes, yes, I'm aware of this obvious fact. Apparently I'll need to break this down really tediously simple like.

1. You said "So now I support the killing of innocent children?"

2. I answered you. Was my response to you? No. It was to someone else. Understand? I was telling someone else about my experiences with other people that were not you. You accuse me of stating you support killing children, I reply that my post was not either to you or about you in that regard, therefore I did nothing of the sort.

3. This point goes completely over your head and I am one step closer to being driven insane by your mind numbing response here.

Solution: Stop taking everything I say about about my experiences in general, or with other people, and applying them to yourself and fabricating allegations of me accusing you of supporting things you don't.

I think you've been talking to left-leaning libertarians. The ones I've met don't even think that.
That's all well and good TR. But you don't change the fact that the ones to which I've spoken exist and are quite common. You seem to think just because you're not like that, most other libertarians aren't either, and that libertarians therefore cannot be as described by me. As of today, however, you are the only person I've met claiming to be a libertarian that does not support abortion. Maybe there are more like you. But in my experience, thus far, you're the exception in that regard. Not the standard. I've met far more who support it than oppose it.

When speaking about the party I generalize based upon their platform to my knowledge and those to which I've spoken. If it doesn't apply to you disregard it. The libertarian party however opposes prohibiting abortion. This means they wish to allow it (they support it). Some 40 million people dead, and they have no interest in stopping that, because they believe a baby is property which can be burned in the fireplace like furniture at the discretion of the owner. When I speak of libertarians as baby-killers, this is why, and simply relabeling it a "property right" and pushing it as "smaller government" to make it marketable to conservatives does not fool me.

Secondly, left-leaning libertarians as opposed to what? The right-leaning ones that support the spread of homosexuality, prostitution, etc., like yourself? Forgive me if this seems laughable. The right-leaning ones, as always, are quite socially left of me. There's more to conservatism than finances mate.

Have you even studied libertarianism? I've taken the time to. There's several different branches, like the conservative platform, in the libertarian platform. Not all of them support homosexuality, abortion, or hate God. If they did, Christian Libertarianism wouldn't even exist.
All well and good, but I don't need to study libertarianism, because it was not the ideology upon which my nation was founded. I study the writings and documents of those that made my government, in order to better understand what they intended for my government to be, and what they expected of me. Libertarianism simply borrows a few aspects of founding era principles, in order to provide itself a fragrance of conservatism, filling the gaps with something entirely different.

The Bible was the most cited source by the founders. Not the Libertarian website. That tells me something all by itself, even without the fact they repeatedly made clear themselves, that preserving the government they built required my adherence to scripture.

I disagree with CzechPrince and Jayson on the Iraq War and yet I'm still considered libertarian. Libertarians often don't agree on everything other libertarians say. So we don't all reach the same conclusions or stay on the same side of every issue.
This is why I call myself Conservative as opposed to Republican any longer, or libertarian (which most political scales designate me due to my stance on financial matters). People immediately understand I am likely right-wing as a self-identified conservative, but it helps to avoid my being automatically pigeon-holed into supporting the entire platform of any one party.

Secondly, your opinion does not change the fact more libertarians oppose our war effort than support it, as least in my experience.

Everyone has their own definitions of the Constitution. Why should yours be the right one? How can you prove the founding fathers would agree with you? And the only historical evidence I've seen you provide are quotes.
People aren't supposed to make up their own "definition" of the Constitution's meaning. It becomes completely useless if this is done. I've already repeatedly provided examples of why that is. I've also cited quotes, court cases, and history in order to illustrate that I, unlike many others, am not simply inventing my own interpretation of it to suit my own preferences.

Just because I love porn, for example, does not mean I am to interpret its protection into the Constitution.

Again, this isn't about homosexuality. You don't have to accept it, you can protest against it and tell everyone why it's wrong. Just don't expect the government to do that job for you.
A completely erroneous opinion. This has been repeatedly illustrated to you, yet you insist on repeating baseless tripe, regardless of fact.

You state that Thomas Jefferson would support homosexuality as "freedom of choice." I cite the fact he proposed legislation which harshly punished it and completely annihilate your bogus assertion.

You state that the government has no place or authority to prohibit homosexual acts. I cite the fact that homosexuality was outlawed by all states when the Bill of Rights was ratified, and continued to be so for the vast majority of American history in all 50 states. Again completely annihilating your bogus assertion.

I'm not expecting the government to do anything it hasn't always done. It always had the authority to prohibit this behavior and did since inception until quite recently (only stopping as the result of rabid leftist homosexual activism to reverse this). The assertion that it has no authority to do this, or shouldn't, is an outright lie. Once this is exposed libertarians must admit their ideology is not entirely derived from founding era Constitutional principles (because those principles are not to change). It's something different, as by its criteria, all of the founders were "big government."

This is utter nonsense.

They made the voyage here because of religious persecution of the Church of England. Thus the reason why they were called Pilgrims. They no longer were accepted in England, so they trusted God to bring them to a new land. \
They came here to build a Christian civilization mate. Even Columbus believed his voyage to discover America was a mission from God given to him in a dream (if I remember correctly). They came to worship God in the manner they wished (not to build a sanctuary for wickedness and vice). Their compact makes it absolutely clear their journey here was in no way to escape Christian government. They came to escape one denomination being imposed upon all.

Yet people all have different definitions of the Constitution. It's called Freedom of Belief. Go figure.
Those people are called idiots. By some peoples' definition the Constitution protects child pornography. It frankly doesn't matter what "their definition" is because it doesn't. It's my duty to harshly oppose and condemn such peoples' beliefs.

Where have I ever said that? Slavery was murder and it clearly affected people. Abortion is the same thing. Don't give me that crap.
You in no way answered my questions or buttressed your position.

FAIL!

You can't murder property douche bag! And what I do with my property doesn't effect you in any way. Try again. Besides, who are you to judge me or impose your morality on me? Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property, you property right hating, big government pig?
Because slaves were people too and they had rights as well.
That's your definition. Not the slaveholder's. Slaves are property, nothing more.

Fail!

I didn't say that Nazi comment. Gonzo did. I just told the truth that you did support sending homosexuals to rehab against their will. What's wrong with that?
Sending them to rehab, which is no worse than what is done with drug addicts, is far less harsh than the punishment prescribed by the founders. You must also oppose drug rehabilitation centers as well. It's wrong to send junkies who break the law for drug money to rehab against their will. Right? The truth of the matter is you don't want such centers opened because it violates your morality that homosexuality is acceptable behavior. Their lifestyle is a primary source of disease and death in society, yet you stupidly pretend in a dream world where they don't effect anyone else, ignoring the fact it was homosexuals responsible for the plague of AIDS spreading through our society.

No, you should be banned because you accuse people of doing things they didn't actually do... without apologizing.
Not to my knowledge I haven't. Next.

You accused me of support abortion, when I don't.
No I didn't. As already explained.

You accused me of supporting homosexuality, which I don't.
You support its decriminalization so yes you do.

You do hit-and-run posts and rarely ever bother to respond to people who actually challenge you. I'm still waiting for that response in that Egypt thread in the Homosexual Debate.
Hit and run? Please. :rolleyes: I have repeatedly provided superfluous substantiation for my positions, illustrating exactly how and why I arrived at them, and that those positions are neither arbitrary nor subjective. I'm not doing so now because, frankly, I'm tired of refuting the same dumb crap over and over, only to have it ignored and promptly followed with regurgitation of the same baseless libertarian nonsense which ignores logic, fact, and history. You'll have to forgive me if I, unlike you, base my political perspective on more than the libertarian handbook.

While I agree with them often on fiscal issues, it's next to never on social issues, because I haven't adopted the entire social platform of the democrats like them.

Cannibalism does infringe on other people's rights, so that's BS.
You must have missed that word "consensual" in my last post. If my neighbor consents to me eating him in a soup what business is it of yours? Libretardians consistently support euthanasia in my experience. Therefore if my neighbor consents to me cutting his throat, and then eating him, it doesn't effect you at all. I'm not infringing upon his rights as he gave me permission. You are in fact the one infringing upon his property rights. Another example, being that property of the body is from what all rights are derived and the less restricted the market is the better (for libertarians), I can sell myself into slavery to boost the economy. It's my property and I can do whatever I want with it you big government hater of "freedom of choice."

These are just a couple of the problems with rights being derived from property (the libertarian ideology) as opposed to God (the legitimate philosophy upon which our laws were based).

And again, I don't support homosexuality or homosexual marriage... morally or legally. I oppose liquor morally and yet that's still legal. Should we ban that too?
You have repeatedly stated you endorse private homosexual acts. If I state I oppose rape morally, but as long as it doesn't effect me personally, so be it... I am supporting it if only via apathy. As long as you maintain this position, despite the fact such acts have been penalized for the bulk of American history whether private or not, I say you do support it to a degree.

When I am called for judgment however I will be able to say with all honesty, evil may have triumphed Lord, but it wasn't because this good man did nothing. I spoke out against it and fought it tooth and nail.

Secondly, the legality of liquor in no way requires the legality of homosexuality.

[TeenageRepublican]

All well and good, but I don't need to study libertarianism, because it was not the ideology upon which my nation was founded. I study the writings and documents of those that made my government, in order to better understand what they intended for my government to be, and what they expected of me. Libertarianism simply borrows a few aspects of founding era principles, in order to provide itself a fragrance of conservatism, filling the gaps with something entirely different.

The Bible was the most cited source by the founders. Not the Libertarian website. That tells me something all by itself, even without the fact they repeatedly made clear themselves, that preserving the government they built required my adherence to scripture.

So how can I trust what you're telling is true if all you know about libertarianism is from the people you've met? That's like saying you know everything about ants (and I mean everything) by looking at them in your backyard.

[The_Elucidator]

Well, I've read all 323 posts (prior to this one) and I still stand by my original vote. Yes, prostitution should be legalized. At least, until someone can persuade me with something besides their personal opinion.

TR's and CH's personal war aside, I've read the same posts and I still think that it should be illegal... :smirky: Nobody has convinced me that it has ANY benefit whatsoever.

Guess that's why we are "Free" conservatives. Unless someone here thinks that I am "FORCING" my "Jack Boot thuggary Marxist Christianity" down their throats.. :biggrin:

[DesertFox]

:thumb:

Yep. When you think about it, few people our ages ever change their minds about their religion or their politics. Best one can do is say why he thinks what he thinks, and others can judge whether he's at least sentient. :D

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

TR's and CH's personal war aside, I've read the same posts and I still think that it should be illegal... :smirky: Nobody has convinced me that it has ANY benefit whatsoever.

Guess that's why we are "Free" conservatives. Unless someone here thinks that I am "FORCING" my "Jack Boot thuggary Marxist Christianity" down their throats.. :biggrin:

Room on da couch, brudder? I'm right dere wit ya.

[Kathy30]

I did change my mind about politics. I was at one time very liberal. It was conversations with my ultra conservative son that made me see how wrong I really was.

Legalizing prostitution confers a societal acceptance with far reaching ramifications. In Germany not long ago there was a controversy on whether a young woman would be entitled to unemployment benefits after she turned down a "legal" job as a prostitute. Acceptance of destructive behavior as merely another kind of accepted behavior is like the broken window theory of crime. This is what cleaned up New York City and reduced crime. It was zero tolerance of the trappings of crime starting with a broken window.

Imagine this. You have a 15 year old daughter. She has a friend. The friend's father is a drug addict, perfectly legal, drugs are legal. The friend's mother is a prostitute, pays taxes and works out of her home. The friend already takes drugs with her Dad and Mom is just waiting for her daughter to get a little older so she could join the family legal business. In fact, the friend is encouraging your daughter to give prostitution a try it's legal after all.

Are you going to let your daughter go to her friend's home? Are you going to permit this friendship to grow? This is what makes societies fail. It is this kind of moral collision that causes fractures that lead to failure.

[LivingDeadGirl]

I did change my mind about politics. I was at one time very liberal. It was conversations with my ultra conservative son that made me see how wrong I really was.

Legalizing prostitution confers a societal acceptance with far reaching ramifications. In Germany not long ago there was a controversy on whether a young woman would be entitled to unemployment benefits after she turned down a "legal" job as a prostitute. Acceptance of destructive behavior as merely another kind of accepted behavior is like the broken window theory of crime. This is what cleaned up New York City and reduced crime. It was zero tolerance of the trappings of crime starting with a broken window.

Imagine this. You have a 15 year old daughter. She has a friend. The friend's father is a drug addict, perfectly leg