Prostitution: Legalized?

[TeenageRepublican]

Do you think prostitution should be legalized?
I personally do, because so far it seems to be working out in Nevada. And as long as the two people are willing to do it and they aren't underage, then I have no problem with it.

[Taylor1]

So if I'm 16 I could get a prostitute? Is that what I see here?

[TeenageRepublican]

So if I'm 16 I could get a prostitute? Is that what I see here?

No. Prostitutes should be kept above 18 and if they sleep with anyone under 18, they should be registered sex offenders and never be allowed to be a prostitute again.

[ThomasMore]

TR and Taylor, you will find people on both sides of the issue on this board.

I, personally, am against it -- I did not always think that way, though.

The arguments for legal prostitution include:

1. It is a "victimless" crime,

2. It has been with us since the beginning of civilization,

3. It allows people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to have intercourse, to do so.

---

My answers to each, in order:

1. It is not victimless. People go into prostitution either because of past sexual or emotional abuse, because they have been enslaved into it (either true enslavement, drug addiction or subjectively believing they have no option), or because they believe that it is easy money and glamorous. In the cases of abused and enslaved, the prostitutes are already severely damaged. Prostitution perpetuates and deepens that damage. The most private and personal part of your life is taken from you and used for others' commercial, impersonal service.

In the third case, people who believe that they are getting easy money, they are wrong. Prostitution coarsens and hardens them emotionally, by severing the relationship between sex and love and turning it into a commercial relationship. Those who engage in prostitution for the money and glamor of it find themselves coarsened and emotionally damaged, sooner or later. Children by unknown and anonymous clients, abortions, and the daily commercializing of the most intimate and personal of acts wears away at the soul.

That focuses only on the damage to the prostitutes. Those who hire prostitutes are hardened, too. While healthy adults have sexual drives all the time, regardless of whether they are currently in relationships, sexual relations are intended to be part of a healthy, committed mutual relationship of love, companionship, loyalty and mutual protection. Engaging in casual sex severs that bond. Engaging in prostitution further breaks that bond and turns it into a commercial transaction without any of the hallmarks of a relationship.

Third parties are affected. Many of those who see prostitutes are also married or involved in committed relationships. The partners of those who see prostitutes are exposed to the risk of disease and the emotional effects that the commercializing of sex has on prostitutes' clients.

Prostitution, even where it is legal, is usually connected to organized crime. Money that goes into the pornography and prostitution industries supports other criminal enterprises.

Health remains a concern. Even in Nevada, the Netherlands and other places where prostitution is regulated with weekly medical checkups, the health risks are real. Condoms are not 100% protection against disease. If a prostitute sees a client on Tuesday who has a STD, you see the prostitute on Thursday, and she gets a checkup on Saturday -- guess what? You might have caught a STD. A prostitute who is willing to dishonor his or her body by constant sex with strangers might not be as particular about personal hygiene as you might wish or think going in.

---

2. Prostitution has always been with us. So has drug abuse (misuse of marijuana, coca and other roots and herbs to cause intoxication), alcoholism and slavery. So has envy, lust, theft, rape and murder. Just because something has always been part of the human condition doesn't mean it is a good thing.

Why is it that some conservatives decry slavery, drug abuse, abortion and homosexuality as destructive and evil, but find it acceptable to commercialize and demean the human body of a prostitute and the prostitute's client?

Slavery and prostitution are not that different in quality. Even though some people willingly engage in prostitution, similarly some people have willingly agreed to indentured servitude (a form of slavery), and historically, even to direct slavery when they felt they had no better options.

---

3. It allows people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to have sex to do so. Yes, and no. There are times in nearly everyone's life when he or she is without a partner. Does that mean that people who are in that situation should see prostitutes?

People are intended to find mates. Our fragmented society sometimes makes that difficult, but it is a normal drive. Engaging in prostitution diverts that drive from its proper purpose.

---

Finally, TR and Taylor, let me close with a scriptural reference.

have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

the body is not for whoredom, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body; and God both the Lord did raise, and us will raise up through His power. Have ye not known that your bodies are members of Christ? having taken, then, the members of the Christ, shall I make them members of an harlot? let it be not! have ye not known that he who is joined to the harlot is one body? 'for they shall be -- saith He -- the two for one flesh.' And he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit; flee the whoredom; every sin -- whatever a man may commit -- is without the body, and he who is committing whoredom, against his own body doth sin. Have ye not known that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own, for ye were bought with a price; glorify, then, God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 13-20 (http://yltbible.com/1_corinthians/6.htm))

That is Christian, and not civil. But do you think God wishes us ill? Do you think we prosper (individually or as a society) when we support and enable prostitution and those who participate as consumers or providers of it? God warns us both for our own good and because prostitution dishonors Him, by defiling our bodies, the Temples of the Holy Spirit. Prostitutes and their clients are worthy of our love and protection, but legalizing prostitution does not love or protect either the prostitutes, the clients or their families.

[Taylor1]

Thomas, I was kiddin' its ok.

[TeenageRepublican]

My answers to each, in order:

1. It is not victimless. People go into prostitution either because of past sexual or emotional abuse, because they have been enslaved into it (either true enslavement, drug addiction or subjectively believing they have no option), or because they believe that it is easy money and glamorous. In the cases of abused and enslaved, the prostitutes are already severely damaged. Prostitution perpetuates and deepens that damage. The most private and personal part of your life is taken from you and used for others' commercial, impersonal service.

In the third case, people who believe that they are getting easy money, they are wrong. Prostitution coarsens and hardens them emotionally, by severing the relationship between sex and love and turning it into a commercial relationship. Those who engage in prostitution for the money and glamor of it find themselves coarsened and emotionally damaged, sooner or later. Children by unknown and anonymous clients, abortions, and the daily commercializing of the most intimate and personal of acts wears away at the soul.

That focuses only on the damage to the prostitutes. Those who hire prostitutes are hardened, too. While healthy adults have sexual drives all the time, regardless of whether they are currently in relationships, sexual relations are intended to be part of a healthy, committed mutual relationship of love, companionship, loyalty and mutual protection. Engaging in casual sex severs that bond. Engaging in prostitution further breaks that bond and turns it into a commercial transaction without any of the hallmarks of a relationship.

Third parties are affected. Many of those who see prostitutes are also married or involved in committed relationships. The partners of those who see prostitutes are exposed to the risk of disease and the emotional effects that the commercializing of sex has on prostitutes' clients.

Prostitution, even where it is legal, is usually connected to organized crime. Money that goes into the pornography and prostitution industries supports other criminal enterprises.

Health remains a concern. Even in Nevada, the Netherlands and other places where prostitution is regulated with weekly medical checkups, the health risks are real. Condoms are not 100% protection against disease. If a prostitute sees a client on Tuesday who has a STD, you see the prostitute on Thursday, and she gets a checkup on Saturday -- guess what? You might have caught a STD. A prostitute who is willing to dishonor his or her body by constant sex with strangers might not be as particular about personal hygiene as you might wish or think going in
.

Porn has the exact same result and yet that's legal. Married men look at porn all the time and in a way are paying for the woman to have sex. Yet, I don't see this being illegal.

---


2. Prostitution has always been with us. So has drug abuse (misuse of marijuana, coca and other roots and herbs to cause intoxication), alcoholism and slavery. So has envy, lust, theft, rape and murder. Just because something has always been part of the human condition doesn't mean it is a good thing.

Why is it that some conservatives decry slavery, drug abuse, abortion and homosexuality as destructive and evil, but find it acceptable to commercialize and demean the human body of a prostitute and the prostitute's client?

Slavery and prostitution are not that different in quality. Even though some people willingly engage in prostitution, similarly some people have willingly agreed to indentured servitude (a form of slavery), and historically, even to direct slavery when they felt they had no better options.


Women and men go in to the porn buisness for the same reasons. They get paid to have sex in front of a camera. If they are slaves, then should porn be illegalized?



3. It allows people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to have sex to do so. Yes, and no. There are times in nearly everyone's life when he or she is without a partner. Does that mean that people who are in that situation should see prostitutes?

People are intended to find mates. Our fragmented society sometimes makes that difficult, but it is a normal drive. Engaging in prostitution diverts that drive from its proper purpose.


Society hates smokers. Everytime they see one, they want to beat the hell out of them. Society can do the same thing for prostitutes by making it seem like it's a bad thing. Even though the tax dollars off of prostitution can be used for greater purposes.



That is Christian, and not civil. But do you think God wishes us ill? Do you think we prosper (individually or as a society) when we support and enable prostitution and those who participate as consumers or providers of it? God warns us both for our own good and because prostitution dishonors Him, by defiling our bodies, the Temples of the Holy Spirit. Prostitutes and their clients are worthy of our love and protection, but legalizing prostitution does not love or protect either the prostitutes, the clients or their families.

The way I see it, if porn is still legal, then prostitution should be legal.
This can also be used to protect families. The majority of illegal prostitutes are underage. Cops can crack down when underage prostitution happens the way they crack down when child porn is discovered.

[jayson]

Porn has the exact same result and yet that's legal.

Consider this: a woman can sell her body legally so long as it is taped and called pornography. Yet a woman who sells her body in the quiet of her client's home is considered a danger to society and is illegal.

Quite frankly, I say follow the money trail. The porn industry brings in more money than theatrical releases every year (to the tune of $12 billion if my memory serves correct). That's all taxed, including the porn stars who pay income tax on the money they make from the shoots. Of course the government wants to keep pornography legal... it's a boon to the coffers.

Personally, I think prostitution should be legalized. I'll spare you from the rant, so I will just leave it at that.

[ThomasMore]

Many people who I deeply respect disagree with me, and me with them, on this issue.

Porn has the exact same result and yet that's legal. Married men look at porn all the time and in a way are paying for the woman to have sex. Yet, I don't see this being illegal.

You are correct that pornography is not illegal. Is it a good thing?

Women and men go in to the porn buisness for the same reasons. They get paid to have sex in front of a camera. If they are slaves, then should porn be illegalized?

Your argument proceeds from the premise that because something is bad, but currently legal, then we should legalize something else that is bad.

Let's extend your argument: in parts of Nevada, prostitution is permitted. It finances organized crime, and some people are known to wind up in prostitution as the result of human trafficking.

Since that is legal, why should human trafficking be illegal? After all, in Nevada, prostitution is legal. What's the difference?

Society hates smokers. Everytime they see one, they want to beat the hell out of them. Society can do the same thing for prostitutes by making it seem like it's a bad thing. Even though the tax dollars off of prostitution can be used for greater purposes.

Huh? Prostitution IS a bad thing. Most segments of society recognize that prostitution is a bad thing already. How does legalizing it suddenly wake everyone up to the fact?

As for the tax dollars from prostitution being "used for greater purposes," do you realize what you are saying? You could rob and kill, and use the proceeds of your crimes "for honorable purposes." Does that make dirty money clean?

Money launderers, organized crime bosses and the Nazis used arguments very much like that one.

The entire foetal stem-cell argument is EXACTLY that case. If we kill babies, but use their stem-cells for disease cures, aren't we virtuous?

The way I see it, if porn is still legal, then prostitution should be legal.

And if prostitution is legal, should drugs be legal? If prostitution is legal, should human trafficking be legal? If human trafficking is legal, perhaps we should reconsider the whole Civil War thing and reauthorize slavery.

That one bad thing is legal is not a justification for legalizing a worse thing.

This can also be used to protect families. The majority of illegal prostitutes are underage. Cops can crack down when underage prostitution happens the way they crack down when child porn is discovered.

How is that different from the present? Are police departments discouraged from going after underage prostitutes?

Consider this: a woman can sell her body legally so long as it is taped and called pornography. Yet a woman who sells her body in the quiet of her client's home is considered a danger to society and is illegal.

Quite frankly, I say follow the money trail. The porn industry brings in more money than theatrical releases every year (to the tune of $12 billion if my memory serves correct). That's all taxed, including the porn stars who pay income tax on the money they make from the shoots. Of course the government wants to keep pornography legal... it's a boon to the coffers.

Personally, I think prostitution should be legalized. I'll spare you from the rant, so I will just leave it at that.

First of all, Jayson, you are creating a strawman. I never attacked prostitutes. I said the business is coarsening and damaging to people who, for the most part, are already damaged. I have more disdain for those who spend their money to use hurt and damaged people for their own pleasure.

I don't justify either prostitution or pornography.

And I thought I provided clear argument in support of my position, not a rant.

Or did you just want to say "I think what I think and I don't want to justify it, so stop bothering me with counterarguments"?

[CzechPrince]

I think it should be legalized. It isn't the government's business, not to mention it would probably be safer for the people participating in it with government knowledge and regulation of it.

[jayson]

Or did you just want to say "I think what I think and I don't want to justify it, so stop bothering me with counterarguments"?

Nope, I've just written it on this forum five or so times over the last few months and I'm not excited about writing my whole argument over again. :lol:

[edgeworth]

I personally think that it should be legalized. I believe part of the reason that prostitution is such a nasty and unsafe buisness is because it is unregulated. I don't really see any bad affects that would be caused by its leaglization that don't already exist.

[Timberwolf]

I personally think that it should be legalized. I believe part of the reason that prostitution is such a nasty and unsafe buisness is because it is unregulated. I don't really see any bad affects that would be caused by its leaglization that don't already exist.
Weeeeeellllll....I can't say I'm too terribul impressed about the way the goobermint runs ANYTHING.

Then again, it could be quite humorous...gives hole ( :evilgrin: ) new meaning to "pole tax"...beaver license...

Go wild....:biggrin:

[LivingDeadGirl]

I personaly find it repugnant, but I also find porn and strip joints repugnant and unfortunately both are very legal. Heck, we have the seemingly "World Famous" Big Al's right here in my own city (BLECH!!!). To me the only difference between porn and prostitution is a video camera/crew.

As for the wives/girlfriends consideration with prostitution, I happen to know a couple guys who found out that the girls they were with had been in "soft-core" or GGW type of productions and the girls didn't see this as bad...so sometimes in the porn industry the guys can be innocent victims of whatever the girls bring home.

While there are some women who get into it because of past abuse or being forced, there are many who seemingly enjoy it. I have friends who are cops who have TRIED to get girls that seem sweet to stop by referring them to services to help prostitutes get away. They are told time and time again that the girls can make better money prostituting than they can in the real world and...this is my favorite..."it's only sex". There are ministries that are very active that try and get girls away from prostitution, stripping, and porn...then meet a lot of resistance because the money is good and with prostitution...they don't have to pay taxes.

Porn, stripping, and prostitution all serve the same purpose. While I don't believe you make one repugnant behavior legal because the other two are, I believe that there does need to be some sort of regulation on an "industry" that exposes countless people to disease each year. Organized crime is into every illegal activity...and many legal ones. By requiring some sort of oversight, similar to gambling, regulations can be put into place.

As discussed in another thread, I see the "brothel" idea being a better alternative, where the girls have to be licensed and tested on a regular basis. Similar to other professions that require licensing, the owner/operator of the establishment would be held responsible if any of the girls were to not be in compliance with the law in addition to the girl being held responsible. Like many places with independant contractors, the establishment would be the one responsible for collecting the fees and making sure that the appropriate taxes are paid and wages are reported. This would also make it easier to identify those not playing by the rules as you would not have streetwalkers anymore. Cities could control where these were located, or even if they were allowed within city limits. Prostitution is illegal in the vast majority of the country and most local law enforcement will tell you when they wipe it out in one area of a city, it really just moves to another. It's like a game of cat and mouse. Just as it is now, you're going to have your "high class" establishments and your "dives"....based on the charges for services.

[LivingDeadGirl]

3 of the groups I was talking about:

www.hookersforjesus.net (http://www.hookersforjesus.net)
www.xxxchurch.com (http://www.xxxchurch.com)
http://www.myspace.com/jcsgirls

[Taylor1]

I'd go to that church. If they were there preachin'

[PrezLeefun]

No.

[DesertFox]

I think most prostitutes are in it because that's what they want to do. I think most are like Eliot Spitzer's little trollop; they were born with that mindset and actually like what they do. They don't feel degraded or used, and they are in control of the entire scene.

Forced or underage prostitution should always be illegal, but of-age women who want to do that should be left alone to do it. However, where they do it is a matter of proper concern. The old redlight districts would need to make a comeback. There is no place for prostitutes in places frequented by kids.

[buzzthepug!]

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$e$!!!!!!

[LivingDeadGirl]

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$e$!!!!!!

Is it wrong that this made me giggle? :biggrin:

[buzzthepug!]

No, I meant it to be sarcastic...sort of...but I kind of like the idea of having the johns tattooed on the forehead.

Plus, I think we're going to see scary viruses mutate in our lifetime.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

Do you think prostitution should be legalized?
I personally do, because so far it seems to be working out in Nevada. And as long as the two people are willing to do it and they aren't underage, then I have no problem with it.
Could you just go ahead and change your name to teenagelibertarian? You are clearly espousing their faux-conservative crap after all. So please stop, through false advertising, disseminating your libretardian love for licentiousness and hatred for morality and family values under the banner of "conservatism."

I'm not aware of your religious disposition, but if you ever claimed to be a Christian, I think it's safe to say you should stop doing that as well also.

Next up, TR makes the "conservative/Christian" case for supporting bestiality!

[TeenageRepublican]

Could you just go ahead and change your name to teenagelibertarian? You are clearly espousing their faux-conservative crap after all. So please stop, through false advertising, disseminating your libretardian love for licentiousness and hatred for morality and family values under the banner of "conservatism."

I'm not aware of your religious disposition, but if you ever claimed to be a Christian, I think it's safe to say you should stop doing that as well also.

Next up, TR makes the "conservative/Christian" case for supporting bestiality!

I don't hate family values or hate morality.
And who are you to judge my Christianity? My father's a pastor and I'm very involved in the church. My faith is frankly none of your business.

And no, I won't change screen name. I love watching you bitch about it too much.

I also want you to find one post where I defend bestiality. I believe it's animal absuse.

I don't know about you, but I was taught to love people, not give them guilt trips. You must be reading an entirely different book.

[TeenageRepublican]

Up next, Conservative Hero preaches to us about how we're all going to hell if we don't vote against prostitution!

[edgeworth]

Up next, Conservative Hero preaches to us about how we're all going to hell if we don't vote against prostitution!

LOL:roar:

[TeenageRepublican]

Edgeworth, that is not funny. You're going to hell for minding your own business.

[TeenageRepublican]

I don't mind bringing some religion in to political discussions. If you insult Christianity and call it a fantasy, fine, I'll deal with it. If you say that you personally think the Bible disagrees with me, fine, I'll deal with it. I'm an easy guy to get along with, obviously.
But when you have the nerve to go up to me and claim I'm not a Christian because my political opinions are different from your political opinions is really, really low.

[edgeworth]

Edgeworth, that is not funny. You're going to hell for minding your own business.

LOL:roar: What I don't get is why CS seems so damn angry and bitter toward people who happen to disagree with him about some issues all the time.

[TeenageRepublican]

LOL:roar: What I don't get is why CS seems so damn angry and bitter toward people who happen to disagree with him about some issues all the time.

He reminds me of Fred Phelps for some reason... http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/shrug000.gif

[ThomasMore]

TR, I am going to separate the civil argument from the Christian one for a minute.

CH made a point which you sidestepped with your "don't judge my Christianity" reply.

As a minister's son, no doubt you know that "iron sharpens iron" and that Christians are expected to admonish and correct each other. From that context, CH's comment was tough, but appropriate.

In my original post to you, I cited Paul's statement on prostitution and license.

---

Just curious. How do you square your civic position and your Christian one?

Don't answer by saying "don't judge my Christianity" -- Christians are expected to offer correction, and accept it.

As a Christian, what is your stance, supported by scripture?

[Lady Di-ski]

Could you just go ahead and change your name to teenagelibertarian? You are clearly espousing their faux-conservative crap after all. So please stop, through false advertising, disseminating your libretardian love for licentiousness and hatred for morality and family values under the banner of "conservatism."

I'm not aware of your religious disposition, but if you ever claimed to be a Christian, I think it's safe to say you should stop doing that as well also.

Next up, TR makes the "conservative/Christian" case for supporting bestiality!

Lucky you,
You just got the mama bear riled!!!

Though I thoroughly believe that one's theology should most definitely influence one's politics, this certainly does NOT mean that that they are one in the same. It is very possible to have similar moral convictions and still come to different conclusions as to how they play out in politics.

That being said, I do not believe that prostitution should be legalized - the same with abortion, porn etc.. That my son, TR, believes differently at this time of his life is not a litmus test of his faith (which I know to be real), but rather a sign of his rather keen 14 year-old political mind independantly ticking and maturing. Surprisingly enough, there are many conservative Christian libertarians out there.

So.... Be the hero you claim to be and stop writing people off as outside the kingdom of God based entirely on a political stance that you don't agree with, and don't jump to such conclusions - you could hurt yourself on the precipice of your own pride.

[TeenageRepublican]

1.TR, I am going to separate the civil argument from the Christian one for a minute.

CH made a point which you sidestepped with your "don't judge my Christianity" reply.

As a minister's son, no doubt you know that "iron sharpens iron" and that Christians are expected to admonish and correct each other. From that context, CH's comment was tough, but appropriate.

In my original post to you, I cited Paul's statement on prostitution and license.

---

2.Just curious. How do you square your civic position and your Christian one?

Don't answer by saying "don't judge my Christianity" -- Christians are expected to offer correction, and accept it.

As a Christian, what is your stance, supported by scripture?

1. CH's post was not a post meant to make me think like your post did, his post was just trying insult me for who I am. I don't mind being judged as a Christian, but I do mind being judged from another Christian who believes he should put homosexuals in rehab against their will.

2. To tell you the truth, my civic and Christian posititon don't even up. I believe it is a sin, yes. But I really think we should focus more on stopping the underage prostitution than what goes on between two adults.

I will say it's wrong morally, but politically I could care less what happens behind closed doors between two adults. If we ever do illegalize porn and strip joints, which is highly unlikely, then I will support illegalizing it. But I think it's ridiculous that you can get away with prostitution if you have the camera on. What's the point in making it a crime by turning that camera off?

[CzechPrince]

TR, I am going to separate the civil argument from the Christian one for a minute.

Just curious. How do you square your civic position and your Christian one?

As a Christian, what is your stance, supported by scripture?

I think you sort of answered the question with your initial statement. While I cannot speak for TR, from how his ideas have evolved as of late, he would probably say the same thing I would: My religious views have no bearing on anyone except myself.

[ThomasMore]

I don't hate family values or hate morality.
And who are you to judge my Christianity? My father's a pastor and I'm very involved in the church. My faith is frankly none of your business.

And no, I won't change screen name. I love watching you bitch about it too much.

I also want you to find one post where I defend bestiality. I believe it's animal absuse.

I don't know about you, but I was taught to love people, not give them guilt trips. You must be reading an entirely different book.

1. CH's post was not a post meant to make me think like your post did, his post was just trying insult me for who I am. I don't mind being judged as a Christian, but I do mind being judged from another Christian who believes he should put homosexuals in rehab against their will.

2. To tell you the truth, my civic and Christian posititon don't even up. I believe it is a sin, yes. But I really think we should focus more on stopping the underage prostitution than what goes on between two adults.

I will say it's wrong morally, but politically I could care less what happens behind closed doors between two adults. If we ever do illegalize porn and strip joints, which is highly unlikely, then I will support illegalizing it. But I think it's ridiculous that you can get away with prostitution if you have the camera on. What's the point in making it a crime by turning that camera off?

It is a thoughtful answer.

As to the legality of pornography, (what I believe is) a distortion of the First Amendment provides legal protection to porn, but not prostitution. I believe it is a blatant misuse of the First Amendment, but one that is deeply entrenched in American law. Having said that, it is illegal to get stoned on Heroin or trip on LSD, but it is not illegal to get blind drunk. Does that mean that we should make Heroin and LSD legal?

Your point is that because one is legal, the other should be, too. My reply is that one wrong doesn't make another wrong right.

As for the focus on underage prostitution, I agree that it should be fought aggressively. But I don't see how legalizing adult prostitution would improve that focus. Child prostitution is already prosecuted in many jurisdictions when it is found; other jurisdictions that don't prosecute it now probably wouldn't anyway.

Legalizing the conduct in adults is a step towards normalizing it -- even if you don't personally approve of it.

For myself, I agree that we have far too many laws on the books, but I personally think this is one law that should stay in effect.

I already know that we agree to disagree...

[bigred1says]

I will say it's wrong morally, but politically I could care less what happens behind closed doors between two adults. If we ever do illegalize porn and strip joints, which is highly unlikely, then I will support illegalizing it. But I think it's ridiculous that you can get away with prostitution if you have the camera on. What's the point in making it a crime by turning that camera off?

I agree with you TR that it is wrong morally, but so is adultery and I hear no one crying out for laws to be enacted to put an end to that act. If a couple were to have the exact same sexual encounter, minus the cash transaction, the point would be moot and no one would care.

Are there victims in the prostitution business? You can bet your boots that there are victims in prostitution just as there are in the trafficking of drugs. The criminal element can only flourish when they are allowed to operate in the shadows. Bring it into the light and watch the roaches scatter. If prostitution were to be legalized the prostitutes would be more able to shake loose of the shady characters that prey upon them as they apply their illegal trade.

Do two wrongs make a right? No they don't but when our society turns a blind eye to the exact same sexual act, where the cash transaction is nonexistent seems to me to be a bit of a double standard. Questioning the religious (political) correctness of those who have a differing opinion than yours seems to me to be counterproductive. Remember, we are all on the same side here. Lets be carefull not to impail our friends with our sharp tongues.

[ThomasMore]

In some jurisdictions, adultery can be prosecuted. However, even in those locations, prosecutors rarely enforce the law.

There is another law on the books in some places, called "alienation of affection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections)." That is a civil claim (lawsuit) which can be brought against a person who gets involved with a married man or woman, by the cheated-on spouse.

The idea is that there is a public policy against marital infidelity, that people who mess with married people are setting themselves up for legal problems, as are the cheating spouses.

Following the sexual revolution of the 1960's, the idea that society should protect marriages, the idea that infidelity was a bad thing, became old-fashioned. Now, we are enlightened and well above such quaint notions.

Our society is much better today -- people know better than to foist their morality on others. Our 50% divorce rate and kids in crisis prove it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2006/03/21/goth.jpg http://goodcharlotteobsessd.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/benji-piercings.jpg

Of course, one has nothing to do with the other...

[LivingDeadGirl]

No, I meant it to be sarcastic...sort of...but I kind of like the idea of having the johns tattooed on the forehead.

Plus, I think we're going to see scary viruses mutate in our lifetime.

I have to say, the tattoos would make things a lot easier for the rest of us! LOL!!

I agree. I think we're already starting to see it with some of the more viralent (sp?) viruses that are coming out. It's only a matter of time till we either have another one we don't have meds to treat or that we've never seen before.

[LivingDeadGirl]

Up next, Conservative Hero preaches to us about how we're all going to hell if we don't vote against prostitution!
:roar: TEEHEE

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

As to the legality of pornography, (what I believe is) a distortion of the First Amendment provides legal protection to porn, but not prostitution. I believe it is a blatant misuse of the First Amendment, but one that is deeply entrenched in American law. Having said that, it is illegal to get stoned on Heroin or trip on LSD, but it is not illegal to get blind drunk. Does that mean that we should make Heroin and LSD legal?

Your point is that because one is legal, the other should be, too. My reply is that one wrong doesn't make another wrong right.

As for the focus on underage prostitution, I agree that it should be fought aggressively. But I don't see how legalizing adult prostitution would improve that focus. Child prostitution is already prosecuted in many jurisdictions when it is found; other jurisdictions that don't prosecute it now probably wouldn't anyway.

Legalizing the conduct in adults is a step towards normalizing it -- even if you don't personally approve of it.

For myself, I agree that we have far too many laws on the books, but I personally think this is one law that should stay in effect.

What wise Thomas said, I second his motion. :claps:

[TeenageRepublican]

It is a thoughtful answer.

As to the legality of pornography, (what I believe is) a distortion of the First Amendment provides legal protection to porn, but not prostitution. I believe it is a blatant misuse of the First Amendment, but one that is deeply entrenched in American law. Having said that, it is illegal to get stoned on Heroin or trip on LSD, but it is not illegal to get blind drunk. Does that mean that we should make Heroin and LSD legal?

Your point is that because one is legal, the other should be, too. My reply is that one wrong doesn't make another wrong right.

As for the focus on underage prostitution, I agree that it should be fought aggressively. But I don't see how legalizing adult prostitution would improve that focus. Child prostitution is already prosecuted in many jurisdictions when it is found; other jurisdictions that don't prosecute it now probably wouldn't anyway.

Legalizing the conduct in adults is a step towards normalizing it -- even if you don't personally approve of it.

For myself, I agree that we have far too many laws on the books, but I personally think this is one law that should stay in effect.

I already know that we agree to disagree...

Are you talking about my reply in the first sentence?

Looks we will have to agree to disagree. At least I'm not a flaming liberal insulting you ever step of the way. :smirky:

[ThomasMore]

No, I am saying your post in responding to me was a thoughtful reply.

I didn't think I ever insulted you. If I did, I apologize, but ask you to show me where.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

You know, I'm not even going to bother trying to act like I could, or even should, politely disagree.
Lucky you,
You just got the mama bear riled!!!

Though I thoroughly believe that one's theology should most definitely influence one's politics, this certainly does NOT mean that that they are one in the same. It is very possible to have similar moral convictions and still come to different conclusions as to how they play out in politics.
Don't insult me. You either condemn prostitution or you support it. If you support it (which I do not), to any degree, you do not have similar moral convictions to me (and stating they are in any way similar is to suggest I am similarly conducive to whoredom and all of the misery it produces through infidelity, disease, etc.).

That being said, I do not believe that prostitution should be legalized - the same with abortion, porn etc.
Then you will staunchly oppose them with both word and deed and rebuke their supporters.

That my son, TR, believes differently at this time of his life is not a litmus test of his faith (which I know to be real), but rather a sign of his rather keen 14 year-old political mind independantly ticking and maturing. Surprisingly enough, there are many conservative Christian libertarians out there.
Are you joking? It's quite frankly disturbing, if you're serious, that you would portray this as "good" thing. A 14 year old facilitating the spread of homosexuality (rife with disease and death) and prostitution (rife with disease and death) is not indicative of a "keen political mind," but a corrupted one turning away from Biblical precepts, and embracing licentiousness and hedonism.

The notion of any child of mine supporting queerdom and whoredom at all, much less lauding them for such, or worse touting it to others as if it were something of which I am proud, is a proposition too wild to conceive.

At the age of 14 no child of mine will be making much of any decision, or forming much of any opinion, "independently" from me. My duty as a parent is to inform, guide, and mold their opinions into that which is proper so when they are old enough to make "independent" thoughts they will be based firmly upon good Christian principles.

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. -- Pro 22:6If this is the fruit of "independent" thought, to flush scripture down the toilet in favor of marxist moral relativism, to advocate the cultural marxist agenda of promoting abominable filth and further facilitate the descent of our nation into the toilet of evil, I must say there will be none of it from any child of mine until I'm long gone.

Your post has only added to the mountain of personal experiences I've had which attest to your last line being untrue if not completely impossible. Ever more is it made clear to me that Libretardianism merely masks the leftist stench of its far left social policy with a few dabs of "right-wing" smelling perfume.

So.... Be the hero you claim to be and stop writing people off as outside the kingdom of God based entirely on a political stance that you don't agree with, and don't jump to such conclusions - you could hurt yourself on the precipice of your own pride.
Sadly, in these troubling times, merely opening my mouth at all to confront and rebuke such rubbish seems heroic in and of itself given the current scarcity of it amongst Christians.

To assert my comments were merely the product of my own political stance is asinine. You're frankly out of your mind maddam if you believe there's any sort of Christian tolerance of prostitution. Both prostitution and fornication are specifically condemned. It literally says fornicators and prostitutes "will not inherit the kingdom of God." That's not my political stance. That's what it says.

Amongst other things:
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. -- Lev 19:29The apparent source of your son's proclivities toward licentiousness have become all too clear.

I maintain what I previously stated.

[TeenageRepublican]

Alright, now that I'm calmed down, I will argue my point against CH in my normal mood.

Could you just go ahead and change your name to teenagelibertarian? You are clearly espousing their faux-conservative crap after all. So please stop, through false advertising, disseminating your libretardian love for licentiousness and hatred for morality and family values under the banner of "conservatism."

Who said being a Republican meant being a conservative? I thought the Republican party welcomed all right-wingers gladly, despite some political issues they disagree with. There was a time when libertarians and conservatives could come together and solve their differences but I guess that time is dead. You are proof of that.
I don't love licentiousness and I don't hate morals. I try to live a very moral life. And, like all Christians, sometimes I slip. But I get back up and dust myself off and try again.
As a result, I have learned that what two people do behind closed doors is really none of my business. I may morally object it, but people can choose for themselves, I can only recommend not to do it.

I'm not aware of your religious disposition, but if you ever claimed to be a Christian, I think it's safe to say you should stop doing that as well also.

I can't believe I took offense to that! I feel like such an idiot for exploding over such an immature response.
I don't, unlike you, judge people's faith by their political beliefs. Whether or not a man is a Christian is between him and God.
But hey, if you want to call me a Satanist Nazi pig, then go ahead. Knock yourself out.

Next up, TR makes the "conservative/Christian" case for supporting bestiality.

Again, another attempt to make me look like a Godless immoral scumbag.
Bestiality is animal abuse, so I'm against it. I know that's impossible for me to believe since I'm a Godless Pagan and all...

[TeenageRepublican]

No, I am saying your post in responding to me was a thoughtful reply.

I didn't think I ever insulted you. If I did, I apologize, but ask you to show me where.

No, you didn't insult me. I was just saying a thought that came to mind while typing.

[TeenageRepublican]

You know, I'm not even going to bother trying to act like I could, or even should, politely disagree.


So you were politely debating me when you told me I wasn't a Christian?
Wow, you sure convinced me.
Do you, by any chance, go to the same acting school that Al Gore graduated from?

Don't insult me. You either condemn prostitution or you support it. If you support it (which I do not), to any degree, you do not have similar moral convictions to me (and stating they are in any way similar is to suggest I am similarly conducive to whoredom and all of the misery it produces through infidelity, disease, etc.).

My mom insulted you? My mom is probably one of the most decent women I have ever met in my life. The worst I've seen her do is grip her steering wheel in anger... and then apologizing.

Are you joking? It's quite frankly disturbing, if you're serious, that you would portray this as "good" thing. A 14 year old facilitating the spread of homosexuality (rife with disease and death) and prostitution (rife with disease and death) is not indicative of a "keen political mind," but a corrupted one turning away from Biblical precepts, and embracing licentiousness and hedonism.

I don't support homosexual marriage. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.


At the age of 14 no child of mine will be making much of any decision, or forming much of any opinion, "independently" from me. My duty as a parent is to inform, guide, and mold their opinions into that which is proper so when they are old enough to make "independent" thoughts they will be based firmly upon good Christian principles.

Yes, my mom is a bad parent because she taught me to form my own opinion about things. You better call social services on her.

If this is the fruit of "independent" thought, to flush scripture down the toilet in favor of marxist moral relativism, to advocate the cultural marxist agenda of promoting abominable filth and further facilitate the descent of our nation into the toilet of evil, I must say there will be none of it from any child of mine until I'm long gone.

"Marxist agenda" ?How is keeping government out of your business a "Marxist agenda"?

Your post has only added to the mountain of personal experiences I've had which attest to your last line being untrue if not completely impossible. Ever more is it made clear to me that Libretardianism merely masks the leftist stench of its far left social policy with a few dabs of "right-wing" smelling perfume.

I am no social liberal. I'm pro-war, pro-gun, pro-life, anti-amnesty, and several other things. How is that liberal?

To assert my comments were merely the product of my own political stance is asinine. You're frankly out of your mind maddam if you believe there's any sort of Christian tolerance of prostitution. Both prostitution and fornication are specifically condemned. It literally says fornicators and prostitutes "will not inherit the kingdom of God." That's not my political stance. That's what it says.

Then that's their choice. God gives them plenty of chances for them to get to know Him.


Amongst other things:
The apparent source of your son's proclivities toward licentiousness have become all too clear.


:flame:
The fact that the moderators are so tolerant of this bullcrap makes me feel like an immoral pig. That is a cheap shot towards the way my mother brought me up.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

And who are you to judge my Christianity? My father's a pastor and I'm very involved in the church. My faith is frankly none of your business.
To assert that one cannot "judge" your beliefs is nonsense (virtually every post everyone makes on every political forum there is essentially does exactly that, including yours). I would instruct you to research what was done to Paul when he first met with the apostles. Anyone with a functional brain is perfectly justified to judge the merits of anything presented to them. We're specifically told to distinguish between those espousing legitimate and false doctrines by their fruit (by their words and deeds, and comparing these to the template provided, will their legitimacy be revealed). You, who are espousing acceptance of prostitution which The Bible clearly condemns, are being judged by that fruit. For every variation and deviation from the main, or general principles, your claim to adhere to the same template becomes compromised.

That's just common sense. If The Bible states homosexuality and prostitution are wrong, and you're supporting the advancement of both...the logical conclusion is that your claim to ascribe to that philosophy is either compromised, superficial, or even false.

Why this would offend you is puzzling. When I was an amoral, or far more immoral man even, I freely admitted any ascription to Christian morality on my part was tenuous as best. (Basically, when I stopped adhering to Christian moral standards, I stopped calling myself a Christian). If you don't see the conflict of interest inherent in a Christian condoning prostitution...

Who are you, or anyone else, to judge Obama's patriotism? I'm a patriotic American, that's who, and, understanding that patriotism means loyalty to one's country, which, by his refusal to say the pledge, displays not only a lack of said loyalty, but an implicit (even deliberate) sentiment of anti-Americanism, combined with his attendance to a church which attacks America from the pulpit, along with his friendship with, and refusal to promptly, and completely severe ties with and explicitly rebuke the pastor that does so, etc., etc., I judge that he is not truly patriotic.

It's called reason.

Secondly, if I were your father, you'd be on front pew duty at every sermon for the remainder of your time at home if I heard you supporting such crap.

I also want you to find one post where I defend bestiality. I believe it's animal absuse.
You completely missed the point (which seemed rather obvious to me).

I don't know about you, but I was taught to love people, not give them guilt trips. You must be reading an entirely different book.This is the typical, bogus, leftist shpeal about how love = acceptance of wickedness. The wages of sin is death. If your eye leads you to sin, pluck it out. It only follows that if your penis lead you to prostitution... Funny how these things are always forgotten by the hippies. Apparently I am reading a different book indeed, as in the real one, and not the one where God never speaks of hell, lets everyone into heaven regardless of their being repentant or not (Repent = To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins. To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction.), and told his apostles to go out to people and tell them their immorality was "none of their business," and that sexual immorality "behind closed doors" was just swell with the Lord.

Love does not only mean kindness and affection, but discipline and enforcement of standards. Some people clearly no longer percieve when the former becomes ineffectual and must be replaced with the latter. It's an expression of love when you spank your child's little ars for playing with matches. You don't address noncompliance with hugs and politely asking him to stop until one day he burns himself, perhaps to death, or burns down the house. You are not loving people by encouraging them to infidelity and fornication any more than you're loving a heroin user by providing them with needles. You are aiding and abetting their wickedness.

1. CH's post was not a post meant to make me think like your post did, his post was just trying insult me for who I am. I don't mind being judged as a Christian, but I do mind being judged from another Christian who believes he should put homosexuals in rehab against their will.
I gave up on making you "think" when you joined the mindless rabble hurling baseless insults at me in flame wars. It became perfectly clear to me then that you "thinking" was expecting too much.

Besides, to mirror TM's approach would merely be a repetition of his efforts, toward which I can offer no improvement, and therefore pointless.

[Air Force Guy]

.

Porn has the exact same result and yet that's legal. Married men look at porn all the time and in a way are paying for the woman to have sex. Yet, I don't see this being illegal.

---



Women and men go in to the porn buisness for the same reasons. They get paid to have sex in front of a camera. If they are slaves, then should porn be illegalized?




Society hates smokers. Everytime they see one, they want to beat the hell out of them. Society can do the same thing for prostitutes by making it seem like it's a bad thing. Even though the tax dollars off of prostitution can be used for greater purposes.





The way I see it, if porn is still legal, then prostitution should be legal.
This can also be used to protect families. The majority of illegal prostitutes are underage. Cops can crack down when underage prostitution happens the way they crack down when child porn is discovered. Same argument one hears from people who want any self destructive behavior legalized--there's always something worse that people SEEM to "get away with." :flame:

Somehow, if we can just get two or more wrongs going and profit from them...they'll somehow become good and healthy for us. Oh friggin' brother. I am now reminded why Lucifer was actually a beautiful angel and how he can deceive just about anyone with his charming guile.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by TeenageRepublican
And who are you to judge my Christianity? My father's a pastor and I'm very involved in the church. My faith is frankly none of your business.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

So dads can buy their family's salvation??? Does he know you're all for the legalization of whoring? What person professing to be a Christian yet stating that whorish behavior creates no victims? Are ya just ignorant of Ephesians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=5&verse=5&version=9&context=verse)??? You apparently don't know where to draw the line in profiteering, not even at the point of selling souls.

You and your soul, young man, are bought and paid for. Betcha don't remember signing that scroll in blood do ya?

[DesertFox]

You guys need to lighten up. You're twisting what the kid has said to suit your own purposes. One example: To assert that one cannot "judge" your beliefs is nonsenseHe didn't assert that. He asked who you are to judge him. If you're going to pick on the kid, at least do it fairly.

[The_Elucidator]

CH you were spot on in post #45:claps:; unfortunately you set the wrong tone in post #21. :noggin:

You and AFG are both right in correcting an erring Christian. However the message is lost when the post is abrasive.

Just for the record; if ones "Christianity" follows the Bible strictly to the letter, than prostitution must be viewed as immoral and should remain illegal. There is no gray shaded area!!

[TeenageRepublican]

Thank you DF. I appreciate it.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And adding yet one more voice to that of DF and Luc, can we please tone it down a bit. Let's not send another thread to FlameWars that doesn't have to be there.

ConservativeHero and AirForceGuy, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. Many times you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Or as my Mama is always telling me, it's not so much WHAT you say but HOW you say it that makes the difference.

[TeenageRepublican]

CH you were spot on in post #45:claps:; unfortunately you set the wrong tone in post #21. :noggin:

You and AFG are both right in correcting an erring Christian. However the message is lost when the post is abrasive.

Just for the record; if ones "Christianity" follows the Bible strictly to the letter, than prostitution must be viewed as immoral and should remain illegal. There is no gray shaded area!!

I respectfully disagree. I just think it's a stupid law to have it be okay that you're paid for having sex on camera but it's wrong if you turn it off.

So dads can buy their family's salvation??? Does he know you're all for the legalization of whoring? What person professing to be a Christian yet stating that whorish behavior creates no victims? Are ya just ignorant of Ephesians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=5&verse=5&version=9&context=verse)??? You apparently don't know where to draw the line in profiteering, not even at the point of selling souls.

You and your soul, young man, are bought and paid for. Betcha don't remember signing that scroll in blood do ya?

I've given my heart to Jesus Christ. And yes my father does know. He disagrees respectfully and says it's alright that I disagree.
I know that's immoral in your whole worldview and all.


1.(To assert that one cannot "judge" your beliefs is nonsense (virtually every post everyone makes on every political forum there is essentially does exactly that, including yours). I would instruct you to research what was done to Paul when he first met with the apostles. Anyone with a functional brain is perfectly justified to judge the merits of anything presented to them. We're specifically told to distinguish between those espousing legitimate and false doctrines by their fruit (by their words and deeds, and comparing these to the template provided, will their legitimacy be revealed). You, who are espousing acceptance of prostitution which The Bible clearly condemns, are being judged by that fruit. For every variation and deviation from the main, or general principles, your claim to adhere to the same template becomes compromised.)

2.(That's just common sense. If The Bible states homosexuality and prostitution are wrong, and you're supporting the advancement of both...the logical conclusion is that your claim to ascribe to that philosophy is either compromised, superficial, or even false.)

3.(Why this would offend you is puzzling. When I was an amoral, or far more immoral man even, I freely admitted any ascription to Christian morality on my part was tenuous as best. (Basically, when I stopped adhering to Christian moral standards, I stopped calling myself a Christian). If you don't see the conflict of interest inherent in a Christian condoning prostitution...)

Who are you, or anyone else, to judge Obama's patriotism? I'm a patriotic American, that's who, and, understanding that patriotism means loyalty to one's country, which, by his refusal to say the pledge, displays not only a lack of said loyalty, but an implicit (even deliberate) sentiment of anti-Americanism, combined with his attendance to a church which attacks America from the pulpit, along with his friendship with, and refusal to promptly, and completely severe ties with and explicitly rebuke the pastor that does so, etc., etc., I judge that he is not truly patriotic.

It's called reason.

4.(Secondly, if I were your father, you'd be on front pew duty at every sermon for the remainder of your time at home if I heard you supporting such crap.)


(5.You completely missed the point (which seemed rather obvious to me).)

This is the typical, bogus, leftist shpeal about how love = acceptance of wickedness. The wages of sin is death. If your eye leads you to sin, pluck it out. It only follows that if your penis lead you to prostitution... Funny how these things are always forgotten by the hippies. Apparently I am reading a different book indeed, as in the real one, and not the one where God never speaks of hell, lets everyone into heaven regardless of their being repentant or not (Repent = To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins. To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction.), and told his apostles to go out to people and tell them their immorality was "none of their business," and that sexual immorality "behind closed doors" was just swell with the Lord.

Love does not only mean kindness and affection, but discipline and enforcement of standards. Some people clearly no longer percieve when the former becomes ineffectual and must be replaced with the latter. It's an expression of love when you spank your child's little ars for playing with matches. You don't address noncompliance with hugs and politely asking him to stop until one day he burns himself, perhaps to death, or burns down the house. You are not loving people by encouraging them to infidelity and fornication any more than you're loving a heroin user by providing them with needles. You are aiding and abetting their wickedness.


6.(I gave up on making you "think" when you joined the mindless rabble hurling baseless insults at me in flame wars. It became perfectly clear to me then that you "thinking" was expecting too much.

Besides, to mirror TM's approach would merely be a repetition of his efforts, toward which I can offer no improvement, and therefore pointless.)


1. Bullcrap. I am for the legalization but I am morally against it. Just like I'm morally against Swingers' Bars. Like I'm morally against divorce. Like I'm morally against sex before marriage.
Yet, I don't ask the government to ban it because my religion's against it.
2. First of all, I'm against homosexual marriage. You keep rambling on and on about how I support same-sex marriage and yet you have no proof.
3. Well after giving so much to the church like helping with homeless shelters and helping with so much other Christian things like that, do you think that you might be ticked off after reading that you're not a Christian if you have a political belief that you disagree with?
4. Ironically, I do sit in the front pew every Sunday.
5. I did catch the point, I was just exposing what you were trying to put me up as. I am not an immoral pig.
6. Oh, bullcrap. That article specifically said they should send homosexuals to rehab against their will. That is obviously wrong and very un-Christian. And yet you supported it.

[TeenageRepublican]

And adding yet one more voice to that of DF and Luc, can we please tone it down a bit. Let's not send another thread to FlameWars that doesn't have to be there.

ConservativeHero and AirForceGuy, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. Many times you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Or as my Mama is always telling me, it's not so much WHAT you say but HOW you say it that makes the difference.

Thanks Homes.
I didn't start this thread to have a flame war. I started it to discuss prostitution reasonably. Which we were doing so for quite a while.

[The_Elucidator]

I respectfully disagree. I just think it's a stupid law to have it be okay that you're paid for having sex on camera but it's wrong if you turn it off.



Disagree with what?


Just for the record; if ones "Christianity" follows the Bible strictly to the letter, than prostitution must be viewed as immoral and should remain illegal. There is no gray shaded area!!

Again, if ones Christianity follows the Bible strictly to the letter than prostitution must be viewed as immoral and should remain illegal. I might also add that Pornography is also immoral and should be illegal according to the BIBLE. Again, if ones Christianily follows the Bible STRICTLY TO THE LETTER! One can't be "morally" against something and be all for having it legal, that doesn't make sense! Again there is NO gray shaded area!

[TeenageRepublican]

Again, if ones Christianity follows the Bible strictly to the letter than prostitution must be viewed as immoral and should remain illegal. I might also add that Pornography is also immoral and should be illegal according to the BIBLE. Again, if ones Christianily follows the Bible STRICTLY TO THE LETTER!

I just don't that government should do that when making decisions. In other words, I will try to follow the Bible strictly to the letter (which I think is impossible for we are all sinners) personally and will object to it. I just think it's a stupid law again.

[The_Elucidator]

I just don't that government should do that when making decisions. In other words, I will try to follow the Bible strictly to the letter (which I think is impossible for we are all sinners) personally and will object to it. I just think it's a stupid law again.

Knowing that we are all sinners doesn't justify sin or sinning. With that being said, if you are morally against it, then you should fight to keep it illegal. Is that really a temptation you want or need as a "teenage republican." :rotflmbo:

[DesertFox]

One can't be "morally" against something and be all for having it legal Um, disagree. There is no necessary connection between legality and morality. Most laws are morally neutral.

[Air Force Guy]

And adding yet one more voice to that of DF and Luc, can we please tone it down a bit. Let's not send another thread to FlameWars that doesn't have to be there.

ConservativeHero and AirForceGuy, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. Many times you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Or as my Mama is always telling me, it's not so much WHAT you say but HOW you say it that makes the difference.Somehow, I suspect that if Jesus had suspected that the prostitute he rescued from stoning was on the verge of lobbying for the legalization of her profession right after his pardoning her...I doubt he'd be crooning "Kum-bay-yah" with her on the front steps of the Sanhedrin.

He'd have repeated his wrathful vengeance reminiscent of his driving the moneychangers from the temple. Not really any room for dispute here.

[Air Force Guy]

Um, disagree. There is no necessary connection between legality and morality. Most laws are morally neutral.Are you insane? Name several of the more common criminal laws that are 'morally neutral.'

This is gonna be interesting.

[Taylor1]

AFG, I realize this is a personal issue. You aren't the better Christian by Judging them. I did not just judge you as thats a fact. I know your opinions are your own. I respect that fully, we just can't get too over-the-edge here. I agree with a lot of stuff you've said, also I'm not just pointing this out to AFG, its other people too. I don't really think prostitution should be legalized. It's more reason for pimps to get more money. Which I don't think is right, what they influence and stuff. Prostitution in groups of girls from what I have seen shows nothing but trouble for young girls to just get abused by their husbands when they grow up. I do think that the husbands like that should be thrown in jail. Also I'm amazed at how well people know the bible here, I'm not even that good.

[DesertFox]

Are you insane? Name several of the more common criminal laws that are 'morally neutral.'Are you blind? Nobody said "criminal laws," dude. All that was said was "laws."

You were asked nicely to tone it down. My "request" won't be so nice. You'll just be outta here for being an asshole. Persist being that way if you wish. You will pay the penalty.

[MSGT]

Somehow, I suspect that if Jesus had suspected that the prostitute he rescued from stoning was on the verge of lobbying for the legalization of her profession right after his pardoning her...I doubt he'd be crooning "Kum-bay-yah" with her on the front steps of the Sanhedrin.

He'd have repeated his wrathful vengeance reminiscent of his driving the moneychangers from the temple. Not really any room for dispute here.
Not so, or He would be against us all. He forgave every Christian knowing we would sin again. You included.

[Taylor1]

My suggestion AFG, people know your opinion by now, I'm not saying that in a smart ass way. I think instead of getting people mad at you or people getting mad at you, you just turn it down.

[Air Force Guy]

Are you blind? Nobody said "criminal laws," dude. All that was said was "laws."

You were asked nicely to tone it down. My "request" won't be so nice. You'll just be outta here for being an asshole. Persist being that way if you wish. You will pay the penalty.A criminal law is indeed a LAW. Are you now moving the goalposts?

You didn't make an effort to specify whether you were talking about scientific law or mathmatical laws so the 2 easy assumptions are criminal and civil laws. Pick one and run away from the other if you must. But you will have conveniently eliminated a substantial section of those things you referred to as 'laws.'

[Air Force Guy]

Not so, or He would be against us all. He forgave every Christian knowing we would sin again. You included.Don't bring me in on this. I'm not part of the activist movement that wants to force their sin on a society. That must be a vastly different thing in God's eyes from people keeping it at a personal level of self destruction.

[DesertFox]

A criminal law is indeed a LAW. Are you now moving the goalposts?Dude, YOU moved the goalposts. We were talking about law, and suddenly you turned that into criminal law. Deny that if you wish, but everybody here saw you do it; and now you're trying to pretend, with no success, that I'm the one who moved the goalposts.

I can name any number of laws that have nothing to do with morality. Most law isn't criminal law, but regulatory law. Push it far enough and it becomes criminal to break it. Examples: Traffic laws. Jaywalking. Litter laws. Nothing to do with morality, any of them. There are plenty more.

I'm not part of the activist movement that wants to force their sin on a society.Which "activist movement" you talking about? If you're referring to those of us who think prostitution should be legalized, nobody here has sought to "force" a thing on you or anybody else. If that's not what you're referring to, I withdraw my statement.

[Air Force Guy]

Dude, YOU moved the goalposts. We were talking about law, and suddenly you turned that into criminal law. Deny that if you wish, but everybody here saw you do it; and now you're trying to pretend, with no success, that I'm the one who moved the goalposts.

I can name any number of laws that have nothing to do with morality. Most law isn't criminal law, but regulatory law. Push it far enough and it becomes criminal to break it. Examples: Traffic laws. Jaywalking. Litter laws. Nothing to do with morality, any of them. There are plenty more.

Which "activist movement" you talking about? If you're referring to those of us who think prostitution should be legalized, nobody here has sought to "force" a thing on you or anybody else. If that's not what you're referring to, I withdraw my statement.Last thing first: There is an activist movement that has been seeking to legalize prostitution across America, one city at a time if necessary. This movement has existed for decades. Google it if you're interested in joining forces. I'm not posting their contact info here.

When you said LAWS, you had every opportunity to specify which kind of laws are totally free from morals, you chose to use the vaguest wording. I got specific, that is not out of bounds by any stretch of the imagination. If you'd been very specific and I tried to broaden the scope...you might have a legit complaint. Such was not the case.

Those examples of supposed amoral laws you just gave, when broken down to their most basic intentions, are indeed morally based. Every one of them.

[DesertFox]

No they aren't. They exist to regulate society, not to impose morality.

You got specific to try to force the discussion into channels where you thought you would have an advantage. Yet there are indeed criminal laws that have no connection with morality. Smoking carries a criminal sanction in some places, but has no connection whatsoever with morality. It is a criminal offense in NYC to carry a gun, but that has nothing to do with morality.

I can name more.

[Air Force Guy]

My suggestion AFG, people know your opinion by now, I'm not saying that in a smart ass way. I think instead of getting people mad at you or people getting mad at you, you just turn it down.If you weren't trying to be at least a little bit 'smart ass,' you'd have PM'd me instead of attempting to lecture me publicly as though you were a moderator yourself.

[Lady Di-ski]

You know, I'm not even going to bother trying to act like I could, or even should, politely disagree.

Don't insult me. You either condemn prostitution or you support it. If you support it (which I do not), to any degree, you do not have similar moral convictions to me (and stating they are in any way similar is to suggest I am similarly conducive to whoredom and all of the misery it produces through infidelity, disease, etc.).

I DID state that I am against the legalization of prostitution! That you conclude that I support it in anyway was clearly you reading between the lines at things that were not there.


Then you will staunchly oppose them with both word and deed and rebuke their supporters.

AGAIN - I AM against prostitution. I would NEVER vote to have it legalized. My son is 14 - 4 years away from voting age and still "in process". Thank you to ThomasMore and Elucidator for their RESPECTFUL challenges to him. You both show great wisdom and clarity and will help TR to think and re-think his positions.


Are you joking? It's quite frankly disturbing, if you're serious, that you would portray this as "good" thing. A 14 year old facilitating the spread of homosexuality (rife with disease and death) and prostitution (rife with disease and death) is not indicative of a "keen political mind," but a corrupted one turning away from Biblical precepts, and embracing licentiousness and hedonism.

No, I am not joking. TR is exploring the role of limited government, personal responsibility and the impact of his faith in a society that has already crumbled far below "biblical norms". He has never, as I have never advocated for the spread of or endorsement of prostitution or homosexuality. Again, you read way more in to things than actually was said. Everyone needs room to think on their own and come to their own conclusions even if it is not entirely correct the first time around. Remeber CH, even YOU have a corrupted mind that needed salvation, and appears to still need a little renewing! (All have sinned...)


The notion of any child of mine supporting queerdom and whoredom at all, much less lauding them for such, or worse touting it to others as if it were something of which I am proud, is a proposition too wild to conceive.

At the age of 14 no child of mine will be making much of any decision, or forming much of any opinion, "independently" from me. My duty as a parent is to inform, guide, and mold their opinions into that which is proper so when they are old enough to make "independent" thoughts they will be based firmly upon good Christian principles.

The Bible condemns fortune telling. 14 year olds are their own persons with their own opinions. It is just plain silly of you to assume that his father and I have had no influence on him or "done our duty". Give me a break! He is in 8th grade!!!!!!!


If this is the fruit of "independent" thought, to flush scripture down the toilet in favor of marxist moral relativism, to advocate the cultural marxist agenda of promoting abominable filth and further facilitate the descent of our nation into the toilet of evil, I must say there will be none of it from any child of mine until I'm long gone.


Need I list the number of chiildren who have rejected their parents' values??? There are PLENTY of godly parents whose kids go wrong. (And TR is NOT in this category!). Even in the Prodigal Son, where the father was a picture of God, had two out of two errant sons!!

And Marxist?? Hardly. My screen name is my college nickname - I was a Russian major intending to serve the Lord in muslim USSR. I was affiliated for a while with an organization that ministered behind the Iron Curtain.


Your post has only added to the mountain of personal experiences I've had which attest to your last line being untrue if not completely impossible. Ever more is it made clear to me that Libretardianism merely masks the leftist stench of its far left social policy with a few dabs of "right-wing" smelling perfume.


Sadly, in these troubling times, merely opening my mouth at all to confront and rebuke such rubbish seems heroic in and of itself given the current scarcity of it amongst Christians.

Sigh....Just because you spout a name, doesn't make it so!

To assert my comments were merely the product of my own political stance is asinine. You're frankly out of your mind maddam if you believe there's any sort of Christian tolerance of prostitution. Both prostitution and fornication are specifically condemned. It literally says fornicators and prostitutes "will not inherit the kingdom of God." That's not my political stance. That's what it says.

Neither will liars and gossips and those disrespectful of their elders! P.S.- exageration and putting words into people's mouths (OK putting words into their post)is a form of lying.

Amongst other things:
The apparent source of your son's proclivities toward licentiousness have become all too clear.

I maintain what I previously stated.

I rest my case!

[Taylor1]

Sorry didn't really think of PMing, my bad. Point is, tone it down, I know people come on here for work and stuff, I don't want them in trouble. I'm not trying to be a mod if I was, I'd say stfu or ban.

[bigred1says]

He'd have repeated his wrathful vengeance reminiscent of his driving the moneychangers from the temple. Not really any room for dispute here.
There is no mention in the Bible of Jesus ever condemning a sinner, he simply forgave them and then gave them loving instructions to “sin no more”. However, Jesus did slam the "Church" of the time and showed no mercy for the shenanigans that went on in the name of God. The money changers were in cahoots with the "Church" forcing believers to pay despicable fees to make their sacrifices all the while skimming off of the top for their own personal gain.
The fact that Jesus did not engage in the stone throwing but instead pointed out the hypocrisy of those who had condemnation in their hearts tends to speak volumes in this discussion. Slamming other believers in the manner in which TR has been slammed reeks of the very hypocrisy that Jesus stood against. And I know that the argument that you are just providing correction to a misguided "believer" will be made. The problem there is that you are not the one who has been called to provide correction to our young friend. Any correction that needs to be done in his life should be provided by the elders of his congregation who have been charged with his discipleship. Furthermore it should be done in love, not in a manner that causes public humiliation and condemnation, remember John 3:17. We as believers need to worry more about our own hearts and the damage that our pitiful attempts of righting perceived wrongs in other believer’s lives causes. This is why the speck and the log message is so important.

[Air Force Guy]

No they aren't. They exist to regulate society, not to impose morality.

You got specific to try to force the discussion into channels where you thought you would have an advantage. Yet there are indeed criminal laws that have no connection with morality. Smoking carries a criminal sanction in some places, but has no connection whatsoever with morality. It is a criminal offense in NYC to carry a gun, but that has nothing to do with morality.
Just saying it doesn't make it so DF.

You have a very narrow definition of morality. For some reason you think it is inextricably tied to the Bible I guess. The concept of morality is based on the morals that a society holds true.

Morals: <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Every single example you've offered is based on someone's or some group's idea of "right conduct."

[Air Force Guy]

There is no mention in the Bible of Jesus ever condemning a sinner, he simply forgave them and then gave them loving instructions to “sin no more”. However, Jesus did slam the "Church" of the time and showed no mercy for the shenanigans that went on in the name of God. The money changers were in cahoots with the "Church" forcing believers to pay despicable fees to make their sacrifices all the while skimming off of the top for their own personal gain.
The fact that Jesus did not engage in the stone throwing but instead pointed out the hypocrisy of those who had condemnation in their hearts tends to speak volumes in this discussion. Slamming other believers in the manner in which TR has been slammed reeks of the very hypocrisy that Jesus stood against. And I know that the argument that you are just providing correction to a misguided "believer" will be made. The problem there is that you are not the one who has been called to provide correction to our young friend. Any correction that needs to be done in his life should be provided by the elders of his congregation who have been charged with his discipleship. Furthermore it should be done in love, not in a manner that causes public humiliation and condemnation, remember John 3:17. We as believers need to worry more about our own hearts and the damage that our pitiful attempts of righting perceived wrongs in other believer’s lives causes. This is why the speck and the log message is so important.So his calling a person or group of people a VIPER is not REALLY a condemnation then right? Likewise Matthew 21:31. Oh brother. :limp:
Read your Old and New Testament again before championing a kid who cheers prostitutes and their apparent "right" to exist as a lawful profession:
Genesis 38:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=38&verse=24&version=9&context=verse)
Leviticus 19:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=19&verse=29&version=9&context=verse)
Leviticus 20:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&verse=5&version=9&context=verse)
Leviticus 21:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=21&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Leviticus 21:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=21&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
Deuteronomy 22:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=22&verse=21&version=9&context=verse)
Deuteronomy 23:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=23&verse=17&version=9&context=verse)
Deuteronomy 23:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=23&verse=18&version=9&context=verse)
Proverbs 23:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=23&verse=27&version=9&context=verse)
Isaiah 57:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=57&verse=2&end_verse=4&version=9&context=context)
Isaiah 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=1&verse=21&version=9&context=verse)
Hosea 4:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=35&chapter=4&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
Ezekiel 16:41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=16&verse=41&version=9&context=verse)
Ephesians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=5&verse=5&version=9&context=verse)
1 Timothy 1:9-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=1&verse=9&end_verse=11&version=9&context=context)
Hebrews 13:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=13&verse=4&version=9&context=verse)
Revelation 17:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=17&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
Revelation 21:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&verse=8&version=9&context=verse)
Revelation 22:14-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=22&verse=14&end_verse=16&version=9&context=context)
eh, you get the point. The Lord God is not fond of whores or whoremongers.

[DesertFox]

Just saying it doesn't make it so DFJust saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong, AFG.

I'm puzzled. My idea of morality is that it derives from God. What you're defining as "moral" is simply moral relativism, which is the polar opposite of what you've been saying.

Every single example you've offered is based on someone's or some group's idea of "right conduct."You can't have it both ways. It's either society's idea of right conduct or an individual's idea of right conduct. Which is it? You're playing with words so that no matter what happens, you can't possibly lose. That's the way liberals work. You going lib on us?

[MSGT]

So his calling a person or group of people a VIPER is not REALLY a condemnation then right? Oh brother. :limp:Read it againhttp://www.knittinghelp.com/forum/images/smilies/aug08_031.gif


You appear like you just want to argue.

[bigred1says]

Don't answer by saying "don't judge my Christianity" -- Christians are expected to offer correction, and accept it.

First of all TR’s opinions are not sinful and he is entitled to express his views just as you are. If he was guilty of commiting a sin then there are prescribed ways to handle it without beating him on the head with our 50lb family Bibles.
Galatians 6 NIV (http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=KJV&bookcode=eph&bookname=Ephesians&chapterid=5&verseid=5)
The acts of prostitution, adultery and fornication are all sinful and should be avoided by all believers. I am sure that TR is aware of this and is just trying to express the hypocrisy of the law allowing certain types of “whoremongering” (porn) to be practiced without fear of reprisal while condemning that same act as it is practiced in private between consenting adults.
I do not feel that he has said anything that requires the “rebuke” that he has received by some members of this forum.

Somehow, I suspect that if Jesus had suspected that the prostitute he rescued from stoning was on the verge of lobbying for the legalization of her profession right after his pardoning her...I doubt he'd be crooning "Kum-bay-yah" with her on the front steps of the Sanhedrin.
He'd have repeated his wrathful vengeance reminiscent of his driving the moneychangers from the temple. Not really any room for dispute here.
Actually the Scripture does not state that she was a whore, she was a woman caught in adultery, so your premise is faulty to begin with.

If you weren't trying to be at least a little bit 'smart ass,' you'd have PM'd me instead of attempting to lecture me publicly as though you were a moderator yourself.
That would have been a great way to handle your objections to TR’s posts instead of lecturing him publicly as though you are his priest.

It is really sad that we feel the need to flame those with whom we have disagreements with. That is not Christlike no matter how you try to justify it.

[MSGT]

First of all TR’s opinions are not sinful and he is entitled to express his views just as you are. If he was guilty of commiting a sin then there are prescribed ways to handle it without beating him on the head with our 50lb family Bibles. I didn't see where TM did that at all.
(http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=KJV&bookcode=eph&bookname=Ephesians&chapterid=5&verseid=5)Galatians 6 NIV (http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=KJV&bookcode=eph&bookname=Ephesians&chapterid=5&verseid=5)
The acts of prostitution, adultery and fornication are all sinful and should be avoided by all believers. I am sure that TR is aware of this and is just trying to express the hypocrisy of the law allowing certain types of “whoremongering” (porn) to be practiced without fear of reprisal while condemning that same act as it is practiced in private between consenting adults.
No, TR is saying prostitution should be legal.

[bigred1says]

I don't believe that TM was out of line in his opinion, thats what it is and he is entitled to express it just as TR has. As far as I can tell he did it with love and was not casting condemnation on TR. With that being said, there have been many attacks on TR's "Christian walk", made by other members and that IMO is wrong.

As far as we know TR has not sinned, and staing an opinion on the matter does not put his spiritual future in question. To hear some of the hurtfull comments that have been thrown at him by those professing to be Christian you would think that TR is the mac daddy who is responsible for the whole practice of prostitution. This causes me to wonder where their motives come from. What they are saying is that his opinions rank up there with the sin it's self. That sounds much like the same reasoning behind the "hate crime" laws which most of us find repulsive. In my mind, the whole purpose of this thread has taken an ugly turn and has morphed into an inquisition of TR and his thought process, which is equally as sinful as the act of prostitution.
It is shamefull for a "brother in Christ" to flay a "fellow believer" who's only sin is using his right to state his opinion on the matter.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

CH you were spot on in post #45:claps:; unfortunately you set the wrong tone in post #21. :noggin:
Yeah, I have a cruddy temper, sorry.

Just for the record; if ones "Christianity" follows the Bible strictly to the letter, than prostitution must be viewed as immoral and should remain illegal. There is no gray shaded area!!
Affirm.

I just think it's a stupid law to have it be okay that you're paid for having sex on camera but it's wrong if you turn it off.
/Long drawn out sigh.

They're both wrong. If one wrong is in progress, the solution is not to allow another, this only exacerbates the degradation of society. This reasoning only leads society farther and farther down the gutter and licentiousness multiplying exponentially. Wrong A does not equate to acceptance of wrong B (but rather halting A). What you're saying is akin to saying because DF is urinating on the carpet I must allow Elucidator to do so as well, and before you know it, bam, now Rhino is demanding to be allowed to defacate on the carpet because both DF and Luc have been urinating on it. (No offense meant, just making a point). This solves nothing, it only compounds the initial problem, and leaves you with a toilet for a carpet (society).

Yet, I don't ask the government to ban it because my religion's against it.I see. Opposition to an established immoral policy should never be based upon religion.

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. -- Thomas Jefferson -- Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, pp. 236-237. t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. -- Luther Martin, Delegate to Constitutional Convention -- Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), Vol. I, p. 374.Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. -- Noah Webster, Contributor to The Constitution -- Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48.[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. -- Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress -- The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834), First Congress, Second Session, p. 1518, March 22, 1790.Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. -- Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence -- Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.Doh!

That article specifically said they should send homosexuals to rehab against their will. That is obviously wrong and very un-Christian. And yet you supported it.You're being willfully dense aren't you? Someone supporting prostitution calling me "unChristian." I illustrated the fallacy of every one of your assertions on that matter. By your asinine reasoning every founder of America, half of the DoI signers having seminary degrees or education, some licensed ministers, was "unChristian" for opposing homosexuality (and far more harshly than I).

Your brain clearly has its corporate headquarters in lala land.

If this appellation is to be applied to me simply for agreeing with them however, fire away, as I could not ask for more splendid company. Hang my name right up next to theirs as pious Christians who rightfully opposed homosexuality both morally and legally.

But yes, yes, we must release every drug dealer from prison eh? How "unChristian" to keep them there "against their will."

Clearly Christian morality should have no bearing on policy in a Christian nation. I don't know what I was thinking taking the word of James Wilson, lawyer, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Signer of both the DoI and Constitution, over yours on matters of law and morality.

This nonsense, a rebuttal of little more than 'you're wrong because you're insensitive to homos' and those that coddle them, as opposed to a response based in rational thought to any degree whatsoever... is the very reason I wrote you off in the first place.

Your morality clearly sits second row to your ever more blatantly leftist relativist politics. That's not a good thing.

Go ahead and champion whoredom and homosexuality, bub, but rest assured I will refer to you as an advocate of immoral filth. Love does not = acceptance of sin in yourself or others.

There is no mention in the Bible of Jesus ever condemning a sinner, he simply forgave them and then gave them loving instructions to “sin no more”.
Telling someone that something is wrong, telling them to stop doing it, and even penalizing them for persisting is not condemning them.

I have no problem with the loving approach. None whatsoever. But it has its limits and it's not the only example provided. Kindness is also not the only aspect of love.

Those whom I [I]love I rebuke and discipline. ... -- Rev 3:19

No one in their right mind would say they'd simply sit idly by and watch their daughter become a prostitute, and when seeing her pimp beating her in a back alley, 'forgive them and give them loving instructions' to cease and desist. I walk in on a pedophile in the act... "Excuse me sir, Jesus loves you, please stop molesting that child." (Doesn't work) "Pretty please?" (Still not compliant) "Pretty, pretty, please?"

The notion that God requires Christians to tolerate sin is neither traditionally Christian nor American. It's a ploy devised to convince Christians and the church, intended to be the guard against the degradation of social mores, that their religious duty is to stand down while the secularists take the wrecking ball to our culture, heritage, institutions, etc.

[The_Elucidator]

As far as we know TR has not sinned, and staing an opinion on the matter does not put his spiritual future in question.

Advocating legalized prostitution as a professing Christian is not a sin? You might want to visit what Paul wrote in his first letter to the Church in Corinth, 6:12-20 and what Solomon wrote in the book of Proverbs. If by advocating legalized prostitution you cause another brother to stumble you are most certainly sinning.

I have Christian Teenage Republicans myself that visit this site on occasion, to get information for debates at school, because of the vast respect they have for members on this board and the integrity of the information posted. It has been especially helpful in their arguments against evolution and immigration. Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, this thread ain't one of them... :smirky:

[Air Force Guy]

First of all TR’s opinions are not sinful and he is entitled to express his views just as you are. If he was guilty of commiting a sin then there are prescribed ways to handle it without beating him on the head with our 50lb family Bibles.
Galatians 6 NIV (http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=KJV&bookcode=eph&bookname=Ephesians&chapterid=5&verseid=5)
The acts of prostitution, adultery and fornication are all sinful and should be avoided by all believers. I am sure that TR is aware of this and is just trying to express the hypocrisy of the law allowing certain types of “whoremongering” (porn) to be practiced without fear of reprisal while condemning that same act as it is practiced in private between consenting adults.
I do not feel that he has said anything that requires the “rebuke” that he has received by some members of this forum.


Actually the Scripture does not state that she was a whore, she was a woman caught in adultery, so your premise is faulty to begin with.


That would have been a great way to handle your objections to TR’s posts instead of lecturing him publicly as though you are his priest.

It is really sad that we feel the need to flame those with whom we have disagreements with. That is not Christlike no matter how you try to justify it.
You're just not reading TR's posts carefully are you? His opinions on legalizing prostitution in America are extremely sinful. His attitude of not wanting to influence laws (which are all based on morality) with his religious beliefs are sinful in the fact that he'd be the guy permitting the holocaust in Nazi Germany, and slavery in early America, because his religious beliefs 'need to be kept in check' (a prostitute-filled Nazi Germany and antebellum south, of course).

[Air Force Guy]

Read it againhttp://www.knittinghelp.com/forum/images/smilies/aug08_031.gif


You appear like you just want to argue.
Nope. You appear that you don't like to check the passage in Matthew I posted.

Take a moment and read the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21. There is plainly condemnation found there. Likewise, the Lord talks to us about those deserving damnation in Luke 16.

It's one of those things that some people feel compelled to misstate fact about when talking about Jesus' "warm fuzzy" ministry on earth...that he came only to love and hug us and not to pass on a firm understanding of the penalty of sin for those that will wallow in their iniquity.

[Air Force Guy]

Just saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong, AFG.

I'm puzzled. My idea of morality is that it derives from God. What you're defining as "moral" is simply moral relativism, which is the polar opposite of what you've been saying.

You can't have it both ways. It's either society's idea of right conduct or an individual's idea of right conduct.
It can be both, depending on who writes and enforces the law...as in a kind of Executive Order or full-blown legislated law
Which is it? You're playing with words so that no matter what happens, you can't possibly lose. That's the way liberals work. You going lib on us?You're distracting from the issue that all laws are based on morality. At their most basic level, every law in the legal realm is based on the morality of the progenitor(s) of that law...civil or criminal. This issue has been discussed on this forum before and I don't recall you arguing against it then.

Incidentally, pagans and atheists have their own sense of morality. If you don't believe it, ask them. You and I might call them ETHICS instead of morals but we won't convince that army of non-believers that they're not living up to our definition of true morality.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Okay, this is a poll thread, not an "attack-a-fellow-freecer" thread. Your points have been made, time to move on. If you wish to carry this on further, I suggest making a thread for such discussion. Let's return this thread to posting one's reasoning for voting in the poll, and let it go.

[MSGT]

Nope. You appear that you don't like to check the passage in Matthew I posted.I checked it

Take a moment and read the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21. There is plainly condemnation found there. Likewise, the Lord talks to us about those deserving damnation in Luke 16.So, you don't deserve damnation?? Please answer this.

It's one of those things that some people feel compelled to misstate fact about when talking about Jesus' "warm fuzzy" ministry on earth...that he came only to love and hug us and not to pass on a firm understanding of the penalty of sin for those that will wallow in their iniquity.No, Jesus will judge sin but He didn't go around spitting venom, damning everyone to Hell. I might be hard for you to believe but He came to seek and to save those that were lost.....you know, sinners.

[MSGT]

Okay, this is a poll thread, not an "attack-a-fellow-freecer" thread. Your points have been made, time to move on. If you wish to carry this on further, I suggest making a thread for such discussion. Let's return this thread to posting one's reasoning for voting in the poll, and let it go.As you wish:wave:

[Air Force Guy]

I checked it

So, you don't deserve damnation?? Please answer this.

No, Jesus will judge sin but He didn't go around spitting venom, damning everyone to Hell. I might be hard for you to believe but He came to seek and to save those that were lost.....you know, sinners.You're getting away from the original claim that a poster made about Jesus' ministry. I refuted that person's claim with scriptures. So now you're comfortable making me the bad guy. :question: Whatever dude.

[DesertFox]

You're distracting from the issue that all laws are based on morality. Um, no. That never was the issue, and now you're trying to distract from the issue -- the opening post -- by saying something else is the issue. At their most basic level, every law in the legal realm is based on the morality of the progenitor(s) of that lawNot at all. I've given examples of laws that aren't based on morality in any way. They are based on the need to regulate society -- everybody drives on the right, for example, or trash pickup happens every Tuesday. These have nothing whatsoever to do with morality -- right conduct -- but everything to do with regulating society.